|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 154 Records
-
2021 (11) TMI 388 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, KARNATAKA
Classification of goods - eggs / hatcheries - classified under the Agricultural Produces/ Products or not - Applicability of GST on Transportation Services by Rail on Eggs/hatcheries under GST Act - HELD THAT:- Eggs, including hatching eggs are obtained by rearing of chicken (Poultry Farming) directly. They are either meant for food or as raw material (hatching eggs) for further propagation, and as per definition of Agricultural Produce, “any produce out of rearing of all life forms of animals, for food, fibre, fuel, raw material or other similar products, on which either no further processing is done or such processing is done as is usually done by a cultivator or producer which does not alter its essential characteristics but makes it marketable for primary market.” Thus fresh eggs in shell on which no further processing is done are covered under the definition of “Agricultural Produce.” There is no condition in the definition that this has to be done by a certain type of person to qualify for the definition.
Since the applicant is involved in providing services of transportation of agricultural produces i.e. eggs, by rail from one place in India to another, those services are hence covered under the entry 20 of Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28-06-2017 and hence such services are exempt by the said Notification from payment of taxes under the CGST Act.
-
2021 (11) TMI 387 - SC ORDER
Time Limitation - seeking extension of the period of limitation in all proceedings before the Courts/Tribunals - HELD THAT:- The order dated 23.03.2020 was passed in view of the extraordinary health crisis. On 08.03.2021, the order dated 23.03.2020 was brought to an end, permitting the relaxation of period of limitation between 15.03.2020 and 14.03.2021. While doing so, it was made clear that the period of limitation would start from 15.03.2021. As the said order dated 08.03.2021 was only a one-time measure, in view of the pandemic, we are not inclined to modify the conditions contained in the order dated 08.03.2021.
In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 03.10.2021 - application disposed off.
-
2021 (11) TMI 386 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of Refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit - HELD THAT:- Issue notice. Mr.Dhruv Bhattarchaya, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He prays for and is permitted to file counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.
List on 18th April, 2022.
-
2021 (11) TMI 385 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Issuance of directions to the respondents to allow one time filing of revised Form GST TRAN 1 and GST TRAN 2 by either reopening the GSTN Portal or accepting the revised physical Form GST TRAN 1 GST TRAN 2 - HELD THAT:- The respondent No.5 is directed to decide the representation dated 20.3.2020 (Annexure P-9) of the petitioner by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
This petition stand disposed of.
-
2021 (11) TMI 384 - PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
Grant of Bail - Fraudulent ITC transactions and by misuse of same - Section 132 (1) (b) (c) (f) & (I) of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- Taking note of the custody period of the applicant as also the fact that the applicant is a student pursuing his higher professional degree/diploma, and also note of the fact that there are no allegations of tampering of evidence or influencing the witnesses, the applicant has made out a fit case to grant regular bail.
Taking note of the custody period of the applicant as also the fact that the applicant is a student pursuing his higher professional degree/diploma, and also note of the fact that there are no allegations of tampering of evidence or influencing the witnesses, the applicant has made out a fit case to grant regular bail - application allowed.
-
2021 (11) TMI 355 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Validity of garnishee notice issued u/s 79 of CGST Act - the respondent no. 4 has frozen the bank account of the petitioners - Alternative remedy of appeal - HELD THAT:- Considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and the objection taken by the respondents, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition as the petitioners have already filed an appeal and the petitioners have approached this Court without approaching the appellate authority or even the authority who has issued the impugned garnishee notice.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to move the authority who has issued the garnishee notice and pray for recall of the garnishee notice. It will also be open to the petitioners to approach the appellate authority for expeditious disposal of appeal.
-
2021 (11) TMI 354 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of summary order passed u/s 73 of GST Act - Personal hearing - Procedure to be followed as prescribed u/s 75 - HELD THAT:- there is nothing to demonstrate from the records that personal hearing was either offered or held with regard to the aforementioned impugned orders qua writ petitioner. - As there is no disputation or disagreement, in cases of this nature, personal hearing is statutorily imperative qua sub-section (4) of Section 75 of TN-GST Act, both the writ petitions are disposed of with directions.
Matter restored back.
-
2021 (11) TMI 353 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Anticipatory bail - GST fraud - custodial investigation is required or not - Validity of search (raid) under GST - it is contended that, since the petitioner was not present and his wife and son were present, the raid, which was conducted in the absence of the petitioner, was not in accordance with law. - a Panchnama was prepared on completion of investigation, however, no copy was given either to petitioner's wife or his son. - HELD THAT:- After hearing learned counsel for the parties, without making any comment on the merits of the case, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to find out the modus operandi of the petitioner as well as involvement of other persons.
Accordingly, both the present petitions are dismissed.
-
2021 (11) TMI 336 - SC ORDER
Levy of GST - grant of mining lease/royalty - HELD THAT:- Until further orders, payment of GST for grant of mining lease/royalty by the petitioner shall remain stayed.
-
2021 (11) TMI 335 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Provisional attachment order - no proceedings pending or initiated against petitioner - section 62, 62, 64, 67, 73 and 74 of CGST Act - provisional attachment of a cash credit limit account was otherwise impermissible or not - HELD THAT:- List again on 14.02.2022 for consideration.
-
2021 (11) TMI 334 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Grant of Default Bail - seeking to set aside/modify stringent conditions imposed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana - complaint under Section 132(1)(b)(c) and (I) punishable under Section 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The right to default bail arises when the investigating agency is not able to complete the investigation and put up the challan within the stipulated period, as the case may be. As has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon’ble Apex Court as also this Court, such a right is an indefeasible right. The accused, thus, does derive such a benefit due to the failure on the part of the investigating agency/prosecution. Such right having been recognized as a Fundamental Right in a plethora of judgments, cannot be equated with the discretionary right of the Court, wherein the Court in its discretion may impose any condition, as may be deemed fit so as to enlarge the accused on bail.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in Saravanan’s case [2020 (10) TMI 1249 - SUPREME COURT], has held that default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is an indefeasible right and no condition of deposit of the alleged amount involved in the alleged crime can be imposed by the Court while granting default bail/statutory bail to the accused.
The default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. cannot be equated with the discretion of the Court under Sections 437, 438 or 439 Cr.P.C., wherein the Court has got ample power to impose any condition as would be deemed fit on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The indefeasible right under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., accrued due to the failure on the part of the investigating agency to complete the investigation and present the challan within the stipulated period would, therefore, be a right free from any inhibition or embargo.
This Court is of the view that the conditions of deposit of Rupees One crore with two sureties in the like amount (atleast one local) and furnishing of bank guarantee /FDR for an amount of ₹ 50 lakh to be forfeited to the State in case of violation of any of the terms and conditions of the order, as contained in the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, are set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2021 (11) TMI 333 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Prayer for direction for expeditious consideration of representation made by the appellant before the expiry of time stipulated in Ext.P7 notification - HELD THAT:- The learned Single Judge was pursuaded, in our view rightly not to exercise his discretionary jurisdiction on the ground that the appellant had the remedy of appeal against the order impugned in the writ petition and the writ remedy is misconceived. Prima facie, we are of the view that both from the circumstances of the case and also the cogent reasons given by the learned Single Judge, the writ appeal does not merit interference with the jurisdiction exercised by the learned Single Judge. This observation, ought not to be understood as shutting out the other options available to the appellant in this behalf.
The appellant is given liberty to avail the options open under Ext.P7 notification. The Standing Counsel appearing for respondents Nos.2 to 6 is instructed to immediately intimate respondents Nos.2 to 6 about the liberty granted by this Court immediately - Appeal disposed off.
-
2021 (11) TMI 332 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, KARNATAKA
Maintainability of application - Classification of goods - Hydraulic Power Pack - falling under HSN 8412 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as adopted to GST can be treated as “Parts of heading 8906” attracting 5% IGST? - Schedule I (Sr.No.252) of Notification no 1/ 2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 or not - HELD THAT:- The applicant, prior to the opportunity of hearing, vide their letter dated 24.08.2021, requested this authority to permit them to withdraw their application, quoting the reason that their business model has been changed and they do not require the ruling. Further the applicant has to discharge fee of ₹ 5,000/- each in terms of Section 97(1) of the CGST Act 2017 as well as KGST Act 2017, where as the applicant has discharged the fee of ₹ 5,000/- under KGST Act 2017 only and hence the instant application is liable for rejection under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act 2017.
The application filed by the Applicant for advance ruling is hereby rejected.
-
2021 (11) TMI 292 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, KARNATAKA
Concessional rate of tax @ 0.1% or not - supply of HDPE Drums for use by the manufacturer of Ethyl Alcohol in his factory for packing his manufactured goods and supply to merchant exporter - Applicability of N/N. 41/2017-IT (Rate) - HELD THAT:- The Notification stipulates certain conditions for supply of goods to the merchant exporter at concessional rate of GST at 0.1%. To avail the concessional rate of GST, the registered recipient is required to move the goods directly from the place of registered supplier to the Port, Inland Container Deport, Airport or Land Customs Station from where the said goods are to be exported, or to a registered warehouse from where the goods shall be further moved to the Port, Inland Container Deport, Airport or Land Customs Station. In case the merchant exporter procures goods from different registered suppliers, the merchant exporter should move such supplies to the registered warehouse, aggregate such procured goods at the warehouse and should move the goods to the Port, Inland Container Depot, Airport or Land Customs Station from where the goods are exported.
In the instant case, the applicant supplies HDPE drums by raising the invoice under Billed to Merchant Exporter and shipped to the manufacturer of the ethyl alcohol. Thus, the impugned goods are not moved directly to the Port, Inland Container Deport, Airport or Land Customs Station or to a registered warehouse, which is a pre-condition for availing concessional rate of GST. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to supply the impugned goods at the concessional rate of GST at 0.1%.
-
2021 (11) TMI 291 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, KARNATAKA
Rate of GST - Job-Work service - business of plating Industry, approved for Electroplating and surface treatment of aerospace and non-aerospace components - Goods owned by others - whether the job work services provided by the applicant are covered under clause (id) or clause (iv) of entry number 26 of Notification No.11/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated 28-06- 2017, as amended, by Notification 20/2019 Central Tax (Rate) dated 30-09-2019, effective from 01.10.2019, for the heading 9988 and also the rate of GST applicable thereon?
HELD THAT:- It could be inferred from circular. No.126/45/2019-GST dated 22-11-2019, issued by the CBIC, that the job works defined under Section 2 (68) of the CGST Act i.e. job work services by way of treatment or processing undertaken by a person on goods belonging to another registered person are covered under clause (id) of entry number 26 of the Notification 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended, and clause (iv) of the notification supra covers only services which are excluded under clause (id) and also carried out on physical inputs (goods), owned by the unregistered person/s.
In the instant case the applicant provides the job work services on the goods belonging to registered persons and hence are covered under clause (id) of entry number 26 of the Notification 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended and accordingly attract GST rate of 12%.
-
2021 (11) TMI 290 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, KARNATAKA
Levy of tax - services procured by the applicant from Beacon US in respect of the referral of the FIS client - import of service - person liable to tax in respect of the services rendered by Beacon US to applicant - whether the place of supply of service is in India? - Intermediary services or not - HELD THAT:- The applicant herein is a subsidiary of M/s Workplace Options LLC (USA), who entered into a global arrangement with M/s Beacon Health Options Inc. -USA (formerly known as Value Options Inc.-USA), which is a company established in USA and does not have any office or fixed establishment in India, for the purpose of mutual referral of clients and work arrangements to Workplace Options Group Companies across the Globe.
M/s Beacon, USA, as part of global arrangement identified a customer M/s FIS Global Solutions India Private Limited (‘FIS India’) and referred the said client to the applicant, for a commission named as referral fee based on a formula, agreed by both the parties, which is equivalent to a percentage of the price charged by the applicant to FIS India. Beacon raised the invoice directly to the applicant for the referral fee.
In terms of Section 5 of IGST Act 2017, IGST is levied on all inter-state supplies of goods or services, and in terms of Section 2 (21) of Act, ibid, ‘supply’ shall have the same meaning as assigned to in Section 7 of the CGST Act 2017. The applicant, with regard to taxability of the impugned service, admitted that the said service amounts to supply in terms of Section 7 of the CGST Act 2017. It is also admitted by the applicant that the impugned services are imported into India and shall be treated to be an inter-state supply in terms of Section 7(4) of the IGST Act 2017.
Place of supply of service - HELD THAT:- The issue whether the impugned services qualify to be import of services or not it is required to determine the place of supply of the impugned service, which is beyond the jurisdiction of this authority in terms of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act 2017.
The application is disposed off without any ruling as the determination of place of supply is beyond the jurisdiction of this authority.
-
2021 (11) TMI 289 - COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, JAIPUR
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - Section 29(3) of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- From the facts available on the records it is quite clear that the appellant has applied for cancellation of registration on 17-12-2018. Thus, as per the first proviso of Section 29 of CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 21A of CGST Rules, 2017 the registration of appellant was deemed to be suspended till the pending the completion of proceeding of cancellation of registration under Rule 22 of CGST Rules, 2017. Further, it is observed that the process of cancellation of registration was pending since long time and thereafter show cause notice was issued to the appellant vide reference Number ZA081120018826S, dated 7-11-2020 wherein additional information/clarification/documents relating to application for cancellation was asked and also it was directed in the said show cause notice to file the GST Return.
The proper officer has rejected the application for cancellation of registration of the appellant vide REG-05 ZA0812200C0253F, dated 1-12-2020 on the ground that response not received whereas, it is found that the proper officer has not commented upon the appellant contention that he was appeared on due date before proper officer and submitted his reply - the proper officer should have taken contention of appellant on record before rejection of application of cancellation of registration but he did not do so and also he did not explain properly the same on comments offered on appeal memo sought by this office.
The appellant was not able to file returns as his registration was deemed to be suspended - as per Section 29(3) of CGST Act, 2017 in the event of cancellation of registration the liability of the person to pay tax and other dues or to discharge any obligation under the Act or rules are made thereunder shall not affect for any period prior to the date of cancellation whether or not such tax and other dues are determined before or after the date of cancellation.
The effective date of cancellation of registration of appellant may be considered from 17-12-2018 by the proper officer - the proper officer is ordered to consider the application of cancellation of registration from the date of first time apply i.e. 17-12-2018 by the appellant.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (11) TMI 274 - SC ORDER
Liability of Interest u/s 50 of CGST Act - Interpretation of statute - Section 73 of CGST Act - whether interest can be determined without initiating any adjudication process either u/s 73 or 74 of the CGST Act in the event of an assesse raising dispute towards liability of interest? - HELD THAT:- Issue notice, returnable in eight weeks.
-
2021 (11) TMI 273 - SC ORDER
Seeking anticipatory bail - Availment of fraudulent ITC upon the strength of fake invoices providing fabricated information on E-way bill portal - It was held by Delhi High Court that petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and make herself available for interrogation by police officer, as and when required - HELD THAT:- There are no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.
The special leave petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2021 (11) TMI 272 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Transitional Credit - directions to the respondents to allow one time filing of revised Form GST TRAN 1 and GST TRAN 2 by either reopening the GSTN Portal or accepting the revised physical Form GST TRAN 1 GST TRAN 2 or accepting transitional Input Tax Credit claimed through GSTR 3B return - Section 140 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has already sent a representation dated 19.3.2020 (Annexure P-8) to the concerned Commissioner and that he would be satisfied at this stage if in the first instance a direction is issued to respondent No.5 to decide the same by passing a speaking order there within a reasonable time.
This is considered to be a fair request. Resultantly, respondent No.5 is directed to decide the representation dated 19.3.2020 (Annexure P-8) of the petitioner by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order - petition disposed off.
....
|
