|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 160 Records
-
2021 (7) TMI 859
Levy of GST - Composition scheme - the turn over after the GST regime came to force is less than ₹ 1 crore - whether the authorities were right in directing the petitioner to pay tax at 28% and also as to what the word “preceding financial year” appearing in Section 10(1) of Act would mean? - HELD THAT:- The word ‘preceding financial year’ appearing in Section 10 (1) of the Act is the crux of the issue. If the word ‘preceding financial year’ is restricted to the period commencing from GST regime, then all the assesses, who have submitted their returns with false declarations in the GST regime for the financial year 2017-2018, would go scot free and would not be liable to pay any tax, as there would not be any preceding financial year in the GST regime for the period 2017-2018. This could not have been the intention of the legislature at all. If the intention of the legislature was to exclude the declarations made under VAT regime, the same would have found place in Section 10(1) of the Act itself - As the tax to be paid is to be determined under the new regime, the legislature thought it fit to fix a limit in the turn over of the preceding financial year for the purpose of extending the benefit under the composite scheme. A reading of the objects and reasons and the provisions of GST Act makes it clear that GST Act has only replaced VAT Act. All the taxes to be paid under VAT are subsumed into a single tax called GST, simplifying the tax collection process and making it easier not only to the customer, but also the State and Central authorities.
The argument that the turn over in the financial year starting from 1.7.2017 has only to be taken into consideration ignoring the previous turn over in the VAT regime does not sound to reason, because when the legislature at more than one place used the word ‘preceding financial year’, it would only mean that as on 1.7.2017, the turn over of the previous year under the VAT regime has to be reckoned with for the purpose of extending benefit under GST regime, provided the self-declarations made are correct - by switching over from VAT to GST system, tax payment/collection on intra state supply of goods is being continued, but, however, in a different mode, thereby avoiding inconvenience and hardship to one and all.
In the instant case, the dispute in so far as interpretation of the word ‘previous financial year’ arose only for the financial year 2017-2018, as the GST regime commenced from 1.7.2017. If the intention of the legislature was that the turn over of the financial year under GST regime is only to be taken into consideration, then there would have been a clarification of the word ‘preceding financial year’ - the word ‘preceding’ appearing before the word ‘financial year’ cannot be ignored and if done, one would doing mockery of the words ‘financial year does not exceed ₹ 50 lakhs’. Therefore, to fix a parameter for extending the benefits under the scheme and for payment of less tax in case of manufacturers and for those engaged in making supplies, the legislature thought it fit to take into account the turn over of the previous financial year.
The collection of tax under the GST Act, 2017 is not in addition to the provisions of VAT, but, this is being introduced as a substitute to VAT Act to deal with both goods and services, so as to maintain uniformity across the length and breadth of the country. This has been introduced to meet the requirements under the recommendations of the GST council, in which all the States and Union territories are the stakeholders - there are no illegality in taking into consideration the previous year’s turn over (under VAT regime) for the purpose of extending benefits under the composite scheme or for collecting taxes and penalty.
Petition dismissed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 824
Provisional release of goods - petitioner states that after the last date of hearing, he has been supplied the Test Report - HELD THAT:- The present writ petition is disposed of as infructuous.
However, the Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to decide the petitioner’s appeal dated 01st July, 2021 by way of a reasoned order, preferably within four weeks. It is clarified that this Court has not dealt with the merit of the controversy. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
-
2021 (7) TMI 823
Seeking opening common portal to enable him to file TRAN-1 and TRAN- 2 electronically - availment of ITC - HELD THAT:- Issue notice - Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of Respondent nos. 2 to7 and Mr. T.P Singh, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of R-1/UOI. They pray for and are permitted to file their counter affidavits within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavits, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.
List on 31st August, 2021.
-
2021 (7) TMI 822
Requirement of GST registration - medical store run by Charitable Trust - Medical store providing medicines at a lower rate - amounts to supply of goods or otherwise? - scope of 'supply' and 'supplier' - activity of selling medicines to the patients for consideration, amounts to trade or commerce or not - HELD THAT:- There remains no doubt that every supplier who falls within ambit of Section 22(1) of the Act has to get himself registered under the Act. As per Section 7(1) of the Act, the expression ‘supply’ includes all forms of supply of goods and services or both such as sale, transfer, barter etc. made or agreed to be made for consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business. It is not disputed that the petitioners are selling the medicines, may be at a cheaper rate but for consideration in the course of their business.
As per the definition of ‘Business’ means any trade or commerce any trade, commerce, manufacture, profession, vocation, adventure, wager or any other similar activity, whether or not it is for a pecuniary benefit. From the bare reading of the said definition, it clearly emerges that any trade or commerce whether or not for a pecuniary benefit, would be included in the term ‘business’ as defined under Section 2(17) of the said Act - Mr. Joshi has failed to substantiate or justify his submission as to how such activity of selling medicines to the patients for consideration could not be said to a trade or commerce.
Both the authorities have in detail considered the submissions and the issues raised by the petitioner Trust and held that the Medical Store run by the Charitable Trust would require GST Registration, and that the Medical Store providing medicines even if supplied at lower rate would amount to supply of goods - the Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the said orders passed by the authorities.
-
2021 (7) TMI 809
Liability of tax - hostel facility to its students including food - hostel fees collected from outside students staying at the hostel for study purpose at a rate of ₹ 250/- per day per person including food - tax liability on the appellant for selling text books to its students - educational institution in Para 2(y) of the N/N. 12/2017 Central Tax (rate) dated 28-06-2017 - exemption from GST or not - education as per the curriculum recognized by law - SAC of the services - collection of fees to Government university or institute working on the basis of Act passed in the Parliament - exemption given to hostel students as per Entry 14 of Notification No. 12/2017 - fixing tax on exempted goods like books - non-taxability of the services rendered by the appellant.
HELD THAT:- In respect of exemption notification, and by applying the settled law of strict interpretation of taxing statute, which are plainly worded, as in the case in hand, the services rendered by the appellant are held to be not a service by way of ‘education as a part of curriculum for obtaining a qualification recognized by any law for the time being in force’ as envisaged under no 66 of the said notification, for exemption from GST.
Service accounting code of the services rendered by the appellant - HELD THAT:- As per the Scheme of classification of services under GST Law, SAC 999293 Specifies about commercial training and coaching services. This service code includes any training or coaching provided by any institute or establishment providing commercial training or coaching for imparting skill or knowledge or lessons on any subject or field other than the spots with or without issuance of a certificate and includes coaching or tutorial classes. Thereby the services rendered by the appellant can rightly be classified under the SAC.
Whether there is any GST liability on the appellant for collecting and transferring examinations fees and other fees to the recognized institutes or universities on behalf of the students study at their institute? - HELD THAT:- As per the provisions of Section 15 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 the entire consideration received by the appellant from the recipient of services is taxable under GST. However, if the conditions prescribed in Rule 33 of the CGST Rules, 2017 are satisfied and the appellant acts as a pure agent on behalf of the students enrolled with them, there will be no tax liability for the amount collected as examination fees/other fees. Accordingly, such amount can be excluded from the value of taxable supply as expenditure incurred by the appellant as a pure agent of the recipient of services.
Tax liability on Hostel Fees - appellant offers hostel facility to its students at a rate of less than ₹ 200/- per day per person including food and at a monthly rate of maximum ₹ 6000/- - HELD THAT:- The appellant is mainly and principally engaged in imparting training/coaching to their students and thereby providing educational services, which is classifiable under SAC 9992-999293. The student who opts to take coaching from them stays in their hostel and pay hostel fees @ less than ₹ 200 per day or maximum ₹ 6000/- per month, in addition to the course charges as a package. It is also undisputed that they are charging ₹ 250/- per day from outside students/residents staying at their hostel. It may be seen here that they are charging different rates from their students and outside persons possibly they differentiate between the two categories of residents. The students enrolled with them are presumably charged lesser amount of hostel fees as a part of the package with educational services. In such a situation, when the appellant are distinguishing the two types of residents for charging different hostel fees for the same lodging and food services, it is not difficult to infer that their students enjoy the concession only as a part of composite services of educational services and hostel facility - Having held that the hostel facility is being provided by the appellant to their enrolled students as a part of composite services along with educational service, the entire set of service shall be classified under SAC 9992-999293 – Commercial training and coaching services, being principal service and shall be charged to GST accordingly. The clam of the appellant regarding benefit of exemption notification no. 12/2017-CT for hostel fees is also devoid of merit in view of the fact that exemption is granted to the services falling under Sl. No. 14 – heading 9963 only and not for heading 9992 as is applicable in this case.
Tax liability on the appellant for selling text books to its students - HELD THAT:- The supply of text book to students are again at different lower rate than that of outside persons, as is admitted by the appellant in their submissions. Hence, the supply of books or printed material relating to the course opted for them shall have to be treated as part of composite services along with educational services, being the principal service, as is held by us in case of hostel fees charged from the students. Consequently, the supply of books shall also be charged to rate of GST as applicable to educational service under SAC 9992-999293.
-
2021 (7) TMI 808
Refund claim - rejection on the ground of time limitation - refund has been filed after Two years from the date of supply of the goods to SEZ unit - sub-section (1) of Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 - zero rated supply or not - violation of principles of natural justice or not - HELD THAT:- As per Section 16 of IGST Act, 2017, it is amply clear that the supply made to SEZ shall be treated as a zero rated supply accordingly, for filing of refund in this case the relevant date would be taken as per clause (a) of explanation 2 (2) of sub section (14) of Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 - the relevant date in the instant case for calculating relevant date for filing of refund claim shall be 26.07.2017. The appellant's contention that the relevant date shall be taken from the date of payment of tax i.e. 19.10.2018 as specific provisions for relevant date in case of zero rated supply has been provided in the CGST Act, cannot be agreed upon.
Violation of principles of natural justice - allegation is that adjudicating authority has failed to pass a speaking order as he did not bring on surface the sufficient basis for the rejection of the refund claim - HELD THAT:- The adjudicating authority/proper officer while issuing the SCN dated 29.10.2020 as well as in the order dated 17.11.2020 he has properly mentioned/elaborated the reason for rejection of refund claim. Therefore, it may not be justify to say that the adjudicating authority/proper officer has not been passed the speaking order - there are no force in the contention of the appellant in this regard also.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2021 (7) TMI 807
Grant of Anticipatory Bail - fraudulent transfer of input tax credit - evasion of huge amount of GST by procuring invoices without actual supply of goods - applicant is partner in M/s Martiz Cera against which allegations of tax evasion is framed - offence u/s 132 (1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act - HELD THAT:- As per the case of prosecution, false Input Tax Credit to the tune of ₹ 18.04 crores has been availed by the firms of the applicant, his brother and father on the strength of invoices supplied by Virat Dhanjibhai Bhatiya under the bogus firms. All are made accused in the present case. However, so far as the present applicant is concerned, admittedly he is one of the partner in M/s Martiz Cera against which allegations of tax evasion are to the tune of ₹ 32 Lakhs.
So, far as other firms namely M/s Himat Trading and M/s Action Industries are concerned, same are respectively of the proprietorship of father and brother of the applicant. It is not the case of the respondent that the father and brother of the applicant were not managing the affairs of those firms and were not aware of the transactions of those firms - applicant is ready and willing to deposit the amount of ₹ 32 Lakhs with the respondent within a period of four weeks from today so far as the liability respecting Martiz Cera is concerned. The applicant has further agreed to provide co-operation to the investigation /Intelligence Officers of the Department ongoing investigation against him.
In ABHINAY ANIL AGRAWAL VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT [2020 (2) TMI 1527 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], the Hon'ble High Court has grated bail to the applicant in similar type of case on deposit of amount of ₹ 1 Crore.
It is deemed fit to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant for grant of bail under section 438 of Cr. P. C., subject to conditions imposed - application allowed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 789
Levy of GST - Valuation - supply of Castrol brand Industrial and automotive lubricants bearing HSN code 2710 - discount provided by M/s. Castrol to their dealers through the appellant - amount received as reimbursement of discount or rebate provided by M/s. Castrol as per written agreement between the Principal and their distributors - reversal of proportionate input tax credit - amount shown in the commercial credit not issued to the appellant by M/s. Castrol - applicant paying tax and availing credit received by them from the Principal Company Castrol or their stockists.
Whether the discount provided by M/s. Castrol to their dealers through the appellant attracts any tax under GST? - HELD THAT:- Section 15 of the CGST Act states that the value of supply of goods or services or both shall be the transaction value, which is the price actually paid or payable for the said supply of goods or services or both where the supplier and the recipient of supply are not related and price is the sale consideration for the supply - the discount on the value of supply can be allowed only if the discount granted is in agreement with the provisions of Section 15(3) of the CGST Act, 2017.
First scheme of the discount is the one that is known at or prior to the point of time of supply, where the quantum of discount is indicated/reflected in the invoices and the GST is paid on the discounted amount of transaction value. Another scheme of discount offered is on post sale basis, wherein the amount of discount may be known at the point of supply but may not be quantified; or some discounts may not even be known at the time of supply of goods. In both these post sale discounts, discounts are extended through credit notes. These post sale discounts therefore are subjected to GST at the time of supply - the additional discount reimbursed by M/s. Castrol, is liable to be added to the consideration payable by the customers or dealers to the appellant. The appellant is liable to pay GST at the applicable rate.
Whether the amount shown in the commercial credit not issued to the appellant by M/s. Castrol attracts proportionate reversal on Input Tax Credit? - HELD THAT:- M/s. Castrol is issuing commercial credit notes, hence are not eligible to reduce their original tax liability. Thereby the appellant will not be liable to reverse the ITC attributable to the commercial credit notes issued to them by M/s. Castrol.
Is there any tax liability under GST laws on the appellant for the amount received as reimbursement of discount or rebate provided by M/s. Castrol as per written agreement between the Principal and their distributors? - HELD THAT:- The additional discount in the form of reimbursement of discount or rebate, received from M/s. Castrol over and above the invoice value is liable to be added to the consideration payable by the customer to the appellant for the purpose of arriving at the value of supply of the appellant to the customer as per provisions of Section 15 of the CGST/SGST Act. Further, the customer, if registered, would only be eligible to claim ITC of the tax charged by the appellant only to the extent of the tax paid by the said customer to the appellant. In view of second proviso to Section 16(2) of the CGST/SGST Act.
-
2021 (7) TMI 787
Refund of GST - Allegation of fake input tax credit - petitioner was unable to discharge its GST liability in the third half of the year 2020-21 due to financial constraints - Rule 90 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules - HELD THAT:- It is settled law that a petitioner who files a petition invoking the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction has to come to Court with clean hand. Further, a petitioner who seeks equity must do equity. In commercial/appellate jurisdiction, a Court may have to grant relief if all the ingredients of a statutory provision are satisfied. But this is not so in a writ jurisdiction where relief may be denied to a petitioner on the ground that he has not approached the Court with clean hands, even when he satisfies all the ingredients of a statutory provision.
In the present case, none of the findings given in the impugned order like premises of the petitioner being found locked during inspection; the partner of the petitioner not responding to the Summons; and L1 & L2 suppliers having issued fake and bogus invoices and passed on fake Input Tax Credit, have been dealt with leave alone challenged. Consequently, this Court is of the view that it would not be appropriate to entertain the present writ petition.
Petition dismissed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 782
Review application - Permission to carry forward of unutilized CENVAT credit of duty paid - transitional credit - carry forward denied on account of non-filing of prescribed statutory Form i.e. TRAN-1 by the stipulated last date - HELD THAT:- The applicants very fairly concedes that even the appeal filed by the Revenue in ADFERT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [2019 (11) TMI 282 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] against the main / final order, stands dismissed vide UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS ADFERT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. [2020 (3) TMI 188 - SC ORDER] passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
That apart, the judgment passed in case of Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. also related to the assessees, who could not file the prescribed statutory Form, i.e. TRAN-I within stipulated time for carrying forward their accumulated ITC, and hence the present application is an effort to re-agitate the entire issue, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction.
Review Application is hereby dismissed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 780
Constitutional Validity of Rule 117 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules - time limit for filing TRAN-1 - input tax credit - Section 140 and 174 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The permission is granted to the assessee to file TRAN-1 by affording an other opportunity.
The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to file / revise TRAN-1 electronically on or before 30.07.2021 - Petition allowed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 777
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Detention of seized goods - Arecanut - difference in the quantity as per the invoice and the quantity as per the PV - any notice or an opportunity to explain the case was not provided - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is very clear from Section 107(1) of CGST Act that any person aggrieved by any decision can file an appeal. Section 121 of CGST ACt bars any appeal against the order or decision pertaining to seizure or retention of books of accounts, register or other documents.
In the case on hand, the order is passed under Section 129 of the CGST Act and the goods seized is Arecanut and it is not in respect of any documents. Therefore, the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
The writ petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act before the competent authority.
-
2021 (7) TMI 755
Withdrawal of appeal - revocation of GST registration by the proper officer - HELD THAT:- In response to the Personal hearing letter, the appellant vide their letter C.No. Nil dated 08.06.2021 received in this office on 10.06.2021 submitted therein that the jurisdictional officer has revoked the cancellation of registration and subsequently all the pending returns are filed till date. Further, they stated that there is no issue remaining in dispute, so it is requested to kindly accept the request for withdrawal of the appeal and oblige.
In view of the request letter of the appellant dated 08.06.2021 regarding withdrawal of appeal due to revocation of GST registration by the proper officer in the instant matter - the appellant are allowed to withdraw the appeal - appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2021 (7) TMI 753
Classification of goods - rate of GST - classification based on process of manufacture (embedding coir yarn in to vinyl (PVC) compound and curing by heating / cooling) - “Tufting” or a process “other than those processes mentioned in Heading 5701 to 5704” of the Customs Tariff and HSN Explanatory Notes to Chapter 57? - coir mats/ matting/ floor covering with vinyl (PVC) backing - covered under the description “coir mats matting and floor covering”? - whether merit classification under the heading 5705 (more specifically under CTH 5705 00 49) of Chapter 57 of the 1st Schedule to the Customs Tariff? - clarification issued by the CBEC drawback division.
HELD THAT:- For the purpose of GST, Classification of goods under any tariff item/sub-heading /chapter shall be done using the General rules of interpretation of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 including the Section and Chapter Notes and the General Explanatory Notes to HSN of the First Schedule of the CTA, 1975 Rule 1 of the General Rules of interpretation of tariff states that the titles of section, chapter and sub-chapter are provided for case of reference for legal purpose, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the heading or Notes do not otherwise require according to the provisions of Rule 2 and Rule 3.
As per description HSN 5701 classifies Carpets and other textile floor covering, knotted whether or not mad up HSN 5702 covers woven bit non-tufted floor covering of felt not tufted or flocked; and HSN 5705 covers other carpets or mats or rugs mainly made of cotton on handloom etc. Hence it is evident from the tariff entries of chapter 57 as well as the entries of the notification that the classification and rate of tax is predominantly base upon the process of manufacture of the impugned products.
Classification of the product, which is based upon the manufacturing process employed by the appellant in this case - HELD THAT:- From the process and the video presentation of the manufacturing process made during hearing it is revealed that the process of manufacturing of the impugned products can correctly be termed as tufting and the products gets covered under heading 5703 in terms of the HSN explanatory note to heading 5703 as detailed above. Hence the plea of the appellant that they did not apply process if tufting is without any force and is accordingly rejected.
The appellant has placed heavy reliance on the test report of Textile Committee laboratory and clarification given by Coir Board etc. it is noticed the Lab test report of the Textile committee only specifies about the identification of fibre as Pile of coir and backing with Rubber based polymer. The Lab has not considered the process of manufacture while giving their option and therefore its of no help to the appellant. Furter, the Coir Board certificate submitted by the appellant is relating to some other manufacturer. Moreover, it does not help the case of he appellant on as much as it does not give any clarification on classification with reference to Customs tariff or GST Tariff - The coir as well as PVC, chemicals fillers etc. have equal importance. Hence PVC tufted coir mats/ matting/ floor coverings cannot be classified as simple coir mats and matting as contended by the appellant.
Thus, the impugned products is classifiable under heading 5703 9090 as tufted PVC backed coir carpet/mats.
Applicable rate of GST - HELD THAT:- If any, PVC or rubber or any other materials are backing the textile of coir fibres/ yarn by way of tufting process, which is used as floor mats or matting, it will fall appropriately under Customs Tariff Head 5703 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% as per Sl.No. 144 of Schedule II of Notification No. 01/2017-CT (rate) dated 28-06-2017 as amended - the impugned products being tufted carpet/mat is leviable to GST @ 12% as per Sl.No. 144 of Schedule II of the said notification.
-
2021 (7) TMI 752
Classification of goods - PVC carpet mats manufactured by them - classifiable under Tariff Item 5705.00.49 of CTA or under Tariff Item 3918 as held by the SGST Member? - taxable at a rate of 12% as per entry 146 of Schedule II of N/N. 1/2017-Integrated Tax Rate dated 28/6/2017? - HELD THAT:- For the purpose of GST, Classification of goods under any tariff item/sub-heading/heading/chapter shall be done using the General rules of interpretation of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 including the Section and Chapter Notes and the General Explanatory Notes to the HSN of the First Schedule of the CTA, 1975.
The classification needs to be finalized only after deciding the nature of the material of which the impugned product is made up of. Once the same is found to be textile articles covered as goods of Section XI (Textiles & Textiles articles) in terms of the tariff (Section XI), the same gets classifiable under Chapter 57 and if it is found to be made up of plastics covered under Chapter 39 (section VII), the same shall be covered under Tariff Item 3918 - the impugned product under discussion has non-woven material made up of PVC on surface, which is coated/laminated with plastics (PVC), which is not in dispute. Hence, by virtue of said Section 1(h) to Section XI (Textiles and Textile articles), same gets excluded from the scope of being Textile & Textile articles under Section XI i.e. Chapters 50-63.
There are no identifiable fibres, filaments or yarns in the exposed surface of their product but the web like structure made from 100% PVC, duly laminated/coated with PVC o the bottom. Therefore, the impugned goods do not qualify as textile materials as specified in Not 1 to Chapter 57 - the said Bill of Entry is of no help to the appellant - In the instant case, there is no fabric, woven or non-woven and no textile yarns. There is one PVC web obtained by moulding process which is then impregnated with PVC which acts as its base. Therefore, even in absence of relevant details about the product covered under the cited Bill of Entry, the goods in question cannot be claimed to be similar to that of the goods imported, based upon the explanatory notes to 5705 and the manufacturing process of the goods in question.
The impugned goods viz. PVC carpet Mat would fall in the Customs Tariff heading 3918 and applicable rate of GST would be 18%.
-
2021 (7) TMI 749
Grant of Interim Bail - constitutional validity of provisions in terms of Sections 69 and 132 of the Central Goods and Service Tax, 2017 - the respondent submitted that the investigation is still going on and the petitioner has joined the investigation by providing full cooperation, but his presence is required in further investigation of the case - HELD THAT:- It would be just and appropriate to confirm the interim regular bail granted to the petitioner, subject to his furnishing fresh adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/concerned Duty Magistrate. The petitioner shall keep on joining the investigation as and when required to do so by giving him notice in writing by the Investigation Officer.
Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (7) TMI 748
Seeking cancellation of the bail granted - Irregular and fraudulent ITC - credit availed on the strength of bills of various suppliers which were non-existing and fictitious - HELD THAT:- On a query raised by this Court and as is evident from the impugned order as well, the petitioner appears to have availed ITC worth more than ₹ 212 crores in M/s Brilliant Metals Pvt. Ltd., more than ₹ 21 crores in M/s Progressive Alloys India Pvt. Ltd. and more than ₹ 27 crores in M/s JBN Impex Pvt. Ltd. totaling to ₹ 260 crores availment. Till date, the case of the respondent is that the petitioner has availed ineligible ITCs to the tune of ₹ 27.05 crores, thereby implying that at the moment there is no material before the respondent that ITC’s worth around 233 crores are also fraudulent.
This Court deems it fit to stay the impugned order till the next date of hearing. NBW issued against the petitioner are kept in abeyance - List on 21st September, 2021.
-
2021 (7) TMI 746
Seizure of goods - submission of the petitioner is that the goods were duly accounted for and accompanied by valid documents but in arbitrary manner the same were seized - HELD THAT:- All the respondents are granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Petitioner shall have two weeks, thereafter, to file rejoinder affidavit - In the meanwhile, subject to the petitioner depositing tax and 50% of penalty as well as furnishing security of remaining amount of penalty other than cash and bank guarantee, after adjusting the 10% amount which has already been deposited, within a period of three weeks from today, in the prescribed manner and in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of U.P. GST Act, 2017 read with Rules 140 of UPGST Rules, 2017, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner, pursuant to orders impugned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
-
2021 (7) TMI 744
Seeking release of the goods and vehicle of the petitioner - tax evasion - section 20 of IGST Act read with Section 129 (3) of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of all respondents. He prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Petitioner shall have two weeks' thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit - List in the week commencing 1.9.2021.
In the meanwhile, subject to the petitioner depositing tax and penalty within a period of two weeks from today, in the prescribed manner and in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of U.P. GST Act, 2017 read with Rules 140 of UPGST Rules, 2017, on the valuation disclosed in the invoice, the goods and vehicle may be released in favour of the petitioner.
-
2021 (7) TMI 743
Increase in valuation of goods - error of law on the part of Revenue in artificially distinguishing the identity of the goods and their valuation - HELD THAT:- Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of all respondents. He prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Petitioners shall have two weeks' thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit - In the meanwhile, subject to the petitioner depositing tax and 50% of penalty as well as furnishing security of remaining 50% of penalty within a period of two weeks from today, in the prescribed manner and in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of U.P. GST Act, 2017 read with Rules 140 of UPGST Rules, 2017, on the valuation disclosed in the invoice, the goods and vehicle may be released in favour of the petitioner.
List thereafter.
|
