|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 1693 Records
-
2020 (12) TMI 452 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - Cancellation of GST Registration - grievance of the writ petitioner is the cancellation of its registration made by the Department which is alleged to be in violation of the provisions of the Central GST Act, 2017 and that the action of the respondents authorities besides being violative of the provisions of the Act is also violative of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties, issue Notice of motion, returnable after 4(four) weeks.
List this matter again after the returnable period on a date to be fixed by the Registry.
-
2020 (12) TMI 451 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Validity of SCN - petitioner-Company has challenged the SCN in the present writ petition on various grounds including that the respondents do not have jurisdiction to pass impugned detention order/notice - Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- In the instant writ petition, it is apparent that by the medium of this writ petition, only a show cause notice has been challenged by the petitioner-Company. Though the petitioner- Company has filed reply to the said show cause notice, but it intends to file a detailed reply to the said show cause notice.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it proper to dispose of this writ petition, at this stage, reserving liberty to the petitioner-Company to file detailed reply to the show cause notice in question, enabling the respondents to determine the tax under the GST Act. In the event of filing reply to the show cause notice by the petitioner- Company, the respondents are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate order. In the meantime, the respondents are directed not to finalize the imposition of penalty.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (12) TMI 450 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - grant of one opportunity to the petitioner to rectify the inadvertent human error having taken place in filling up the declaration from TRAN-1 filed under section 140 of the Central Goods And service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the authorities concerned within a period of four weeks from today, whereafter the same shall be considered and decided by the authorities concerned, as per law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of four weeks thereafter.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (12) TMI 409 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, HIMACHAL PRADESH
Taxability of GST - receipts being Grant in Aid (in the form of license fee), donations etc received from the Government of Himachal Pradesh for promotion of Tourism activities in the State - Government Entity - N/N. 32/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 13th October, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The said notification defines "Government Entity" as an authority or a board or any other body including a society, trust, corporation,
(i) set up by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature; or
(ii) established by any Government,
with 90 percent or more participation by way of equity or control, to carry out a function entrusted by the Central Government, State Government, Union Territory or a local authority.".
Therefore, The HP Tourism Development Board fulfils the criterion laid down for the “Government entity” as per Notification No 32/2017- Central Tax (Rate) because it has been established by the Government with 100% control to carry out the function of promotion and regulation of tourism activities in the state.
The amount credited in favour of H.P Tourism Development Board by Department of Tourism, Govt. of H.P, as grant in aid or financial assistance is exempt under GST as per Serial No 9C of Notification No 32/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 13th October, 2017.
-
2020 (12) TMI 408 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Permission for withdrawal of petition - permission to revise the returns in GSTR-3B for the period from July 2017 onwards to enable them to utilize the credit carried forward through GST TRAN-1 from July 2017 onwards - HELD THAT:- Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2020 (12) TMI 407 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - petitioner requested for additional fifteen days time to file a detailed reply and also for personal hearing - SCN issued on the ground that the second refund application cannot be filed in view of the fact that a similar application filed in the month of September 2018 has been sanctioned - HELD THAT:- The petitioner who has not participated in the proceeding pursuant to the show cause notice cannot canvass such grounds. But, the learned Counsel is unable to controvert that the impugned order is without considering the petitioner’s request for grant of additional time.
Also for the reasons that the learned Counsel for the parties is unable to point out prohibition in law against grant of extension of time by the third respondent and to serve the interest of justice, this Court is of the considered view that it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the proceeding to the third respondent for a considered decision with a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to file its detailed objections and to avail personal hearing.
Petition allowed in part.
-
2020 (12) TMI 406 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Rejection of Bids - petitioner submitted his bid along with all relevant documents, but the bid of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted the GST Registration Certificate in his name along with the bid documents - HELD THAT:- The financial bid has not been opened and the opposite parties have not taken any final decision and have not executed any agreement, we require the Commissioner- cum-Secretary, Tourism Department, Odisha, Bhubaneswar-opposite party no.1 to examine grievance of the petitioner and consider the validity of the decision of the Committee in disqualifying the bid of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ADANI GAS LIMITED VERSUS PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS REGULATORY BOARD AND ORS. [2020 (2) TMI 1391 - SUPREME COURT] in view of the fact that the case of the petitioner comes under Eligibility Condition-B of Table-6 of the RFP and that the RFP conditions do not specifically require the bidders to submit GST Registration Certificate along with bid documents and take a decision on the same by passing a speaking order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as bidder likely to be affected thereby, before execution and signing of the agreement.
The petitioner shall be requested to submit such representation along with a copy of this order within seven days.
-
2020 (12) TMI 361 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of goods - transport of beverages - classification disputes - Section 129 of the GST Act - HELD THAT:- Taking note of the reason cited in Exts.P1 and P1(a) order and notice respectively and finding that what has been raised is a classification dispute which does not come within the ambit of the power conferred on the detaining authority under Section 129 of the GST Act, I quash Exts.P1 and P1(a) and direct the respondent to release the goods and the vehicle covered by Exts.P1 and P1(a) to the petitioner on the petitioner producing a copy of this judgment before the respondent.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (12) TMI 360 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Direction to receive the applications from the publishers/members of the Petitioner society without insisting on production of GST - Section 23 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Schedule I Entry 119 to the “Rates of GST on Goods” - HELD THAT:- Keeping in view the submissions made and subject to the members of the petitioner giving an undertaking/affidavit to the effect that they are not liable to pay GST on reverse charge basis as provided under Section 9(3) of the Act, the tender/application of the members of the petitioner in response to the advertisement published on 20.11.2020 shall not be rejected by the respondent no. 2 only on the ground of their inability to give the GST registration number.
List on 17th February, 2021 alongwith the main petition.
-
2020 (12) TMI 359 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Validity of proviso to Section 16(4) of the Central Goods And Services Act, 2017 - petitioner/applicant states that though the ground to challenge the proviso to Section 16(4) had been pleaded by the petitioner in the present writ petition, however, inadvertently, the prayer challenging the validity of proviso to Section 16(4) was not incorporated in the Prayer Clause (A) of the petition - HELD THAT:- Issue notice.
Since the amendment is formal in nature, the same is allowed and the amended writ petition is taken on record - present application stands allowed.
-
2020 (12) TMI 358 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Detention of goods - no opportunity has been granted to the petitioner before concluding the proceedings - payment of tax and penalty under protest - Section 129 of GST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Matter be listed after 5 weeks.
-
2020 (12) TMI 357 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Principles of natural justice - impugned Order of Assessment cum Penalty cum Interest passed by the First Respondent without affording reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner - HELD THAT:- The petitioner received the notice for final hearing, dated 06.11.2019, by way of a registered post on 12.11.2019. Immediately thereafter, he contacted his Tax Consultant, who was at Hyderabad. The Tax Consultant informed him that it is not possible for him to come over from Hyderabad to Proddatur on a day’s notice, as he has to adjust his work. So he himself prepared an adjournment letter informing the facts and sought 15 days’ time for attending the hearing. The petitioner went to the office of respondent No.1 on 13.11.2019 in the afternoon but the officer was not present. He stayed there and met the officer before the closing hours, who informed that the impugned order has already been passed.
The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that deciding the matter without hearing the petitioner amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, cannot be brushed aside. Even assuming that the notice was sent by e-mail, we feel that the petitioner should have been given some more time so as to enable him to engage a counsel, who can present his case well before the concerned authority, more so, having regard to the background in which he is placed.
The matter is remanded back to the authority with a direction that the same shall be decided on or before 15.12.2020 after hearing the petitioner - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (12) TMI 356 - COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, JAIPUR
Rejection of Refund claim - Inverted duty structure - Trading of goods - Purchase @18% of GST and supply @5% to Public Funded Research Institutes - appellant has procured the Scientific and Technical Instruments, Apparatus, Equipment etc., from various suppliers on payment of 18% tax and supplies the same as such even without change of its packing to various research institutes on the payment of 5% tax by availing exemption N/N. 47/2017-IGST(rate) dated 14.11.2017 and 45/2017-CGST(rate) dated 14.11.2017 and part supplies were also made to other purchasers on full rate of tax i.e. 18% - whether the goods on which credit is accumulated and refund is claimed can be treated, as 'Input and falls under the purview of inverted duty structure or otherwise'?
HELD THAT:- The appellant is engaged in the trading activities and supplied the goods i.e. Scientific and Technical Instruments, Apparatus, Equipment etc., as such to Public Funded Research Institutes at 5% rate of GST by availing benefit under Notification No.47/2017-IGST(rate) dated 14.11.2017 and 45/2017-CGST(rate) dated 14.11.2017. The same goods were also supplied by the appellant at the rate of 18% GST to other purchasers. The appellant also did not carryout any further processes i.e. checking of goods, testing, inspection etc., and supplied the goods as such, it is also found that no value addition has been done by the appellant.
The goods procured are attracting the same rate as the appellant has also supplied the goods at the rate of 18% GST to other purchaser without availing the benefit of notification, therefore such goods can not be treated as Inputs and does not qualify the criteria prescribed under Inverted rated duty structure as provided under Section 54 (3) (ii) of CGST Act, 2017.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2020 (12) TMI 312 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of goods alongwith the vehicle - no valid document carried along with the vehicle while transporting it - petitioner seeks permission to clear the vehicle on furnishing a bank guarantee for the amounts demanded in Ext.P4 without prejudice to his right to contest the computation of the tax and penalty in proceedings under Section 129 (3) of the GST Act - HELD THAT:- The Writ Petition is disposed off by permitting the petitioner to clear the vehicle on furnishing a bank guarantee for the amounts demanded in Ext.P4 notice. It is made clear that after the clearance of the vehicle, the respondent shall pass the adjudication order in Form GST MOV 09 after considering the contentions of the petitioner with regard to the computation of the tax and penalty.
-
2020 (12) TMI 311 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of goods alongwith the vehicle - errors in the dates of invoice - invoice that accompanied the transportation of the goods did not contain any date thereon - while the shipping date was shown as 15.11.2020, the date shown in the e-way bill was 25.11.2020 - Part-B of the e-way bill was not updated with the relevant railway RR number - HELD THAT:- Taking note of the said findings, the detention cannot be said to be unjustified.
The petitioner is permitted to clear the goods and the vehicle on furnishing a bank guarantee for the amount demanded in Ext.P8 notice - petition disposed off.
-
2020 (12) TMI 310 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Grant of Bail - allegation of creation of 26 firms to facilitate availment and utilization of input Tax Credit - It is contended that in similar type of cases, bail have been granted - the matter is still at the stage of pre-charge evidence - HELD THAT:- Union of India have opposed the bail application. It is contended that petitioner has created 26 firms to facilitate availment and utilization of input Tax Credit to the tune of ₹ 108.36 crores.
Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for Union of India, the third bail application cannot be entertained - Bail application dismissed.
-
2020 (12) TMI 309 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Release of provisionally attached goods - petitioners submits that as only show cause notice under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 has been issued, the attachment under Section 83 of CGST Act can not be made - Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The impugned Provisional attachment order has been issued by the competent authority under Section 83 of the Act for the purpose of protecting interest of the Government revenue. Against the order of Provisional attachment under Section 83(1) of the Act, the petitioners have an opportunity to file an objection under sub-Rule 5 of Rule 159 of the Rules. It has been admitted before us by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have not filed any objection against the impugned provisional attachment dated 22.07.2020. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be said to suffer from any manifest error of law.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (12) TMI 275 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, HIMACHAL PRADESH
Classification of goods - Non Woven Fabric, which is made using PP granules - Non Woven Fabric like Non Woven Fabric bag, 3 ply mask, surgical cap, gown, shoe cover and other disposable items - HELD THAT:- In the instant case fiber grade polypropylene granules are processed to form PP Spun bonded Non woven fabrics which is classified under Chapter Heading 5603 in First Schedule to the Custom Tariff Act, 1975 - In the instant case, non-woven bag is produced by processing non-woven fabric. The non-woven fabric is cut to size and stitched to give it a shape of the bag. Therefore, in view of Section Note 7 of Section Xl of Custom Tariff, the non- woven fabric bags are “made-up textile articles”.
The sacks and bags made up of textile material including those made of man-made textile material such as polypropylene strip or the like used for packing of goods would be covered under Chapter Heading 6305 - non-woven fabric bags will be classifiable under Tariff item 6305 33 00.
The Disposable surgical cap resembles a shower cap with an elastic opening. The applicable subheading for the disposable surgical cap will be 6505 90 which provides for “Hats and other headgear, knitted or crocheted, or made up from lace, felt or other textile fabric, in the piece (but not in strips), whether or not lined or trimmed; hair-nets of any material, whether or not lined or trimmed” - others - The applicable subheading for the disposable surgical mask and shoe cover will be 6307 which provides for “Other made up articles, including dress patterns”.
The fact whether the raw material is manufactured in the same unit or different does not have any effect on the classification of final product. In the first process, the final product will be PP spun bonded nonwoven fabric whereas in second process, nonwoven fabric will be used as raw material for manufacturing final product such as bags, surgical masks, gowns, shoe cover etc and HSN will be applicable accordingly.
-
2020 (12) TMI 274 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, HIMACHAL PRADESH
Maintainability of application - prescribed fee not submitted - Levy of GST - services received by HPHDS (A Govt owned & controlled society) from service provider outside India - HELD THAT:- Since the application in this case is not accompanied by requisite fee of ₹ 10,000/-, therefore the same is rejected.
-
2020 (12) TMI 273 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, HIMACHAL PRADESH
Scope of Advance Ruling application - section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Input Tax Credit - rejection solely on the ground that the tax collected by the supplier of the raw material from the applicant is not paid to the government in cash and also on the ground that the tax collected by the supplier of the raw material from the applicant is paid to the government through utilization of ineligible input tax credit - HELD THAT:- All the cases pertain to a scenario where tax has not actually been paid. Even in cases where tax has been paid by the supplier to the government through in-eligible input tax credit it would always deemed not to have been paid as tax has not actually been paid to the government. When the applicant is sure as is evident in the application that tax has not been paid in cash or has been paid through ineligible input tax credit, it clearly implies that either tax has not been paid or deemed not to have been paid. Therefore, in all the mentioned cases, it can not be regarded as tax paid to the government by any stretch of mind.
Thus, in view of the provisions laid down in section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 encompassing the specific questions, which are sought under advance ruling, it can decisively be inferred that the questions raised by the respondent before Advance Ruling Authority were beyond the scope and jurisdiction of Advance Ruling, and hence do not warrant any ruling thereon and therefore in view of the provisions of Section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017, 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 CGST Act, 2017 and Rules made there thereunder.
............
|
