Home Case Index All Cases GST 2022 2022 This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

GST - Case Laws

Showing 41 to 60 of 1928 Records

• 2022 (12) TMI 1175 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
  

  Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months - HELD THAT:- Since, the petitioner failed to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months and show cause notice has been sent to him, it is directed that the petitioner shall file an application for revocation under Section 30 of the CGST Act in terms of Rule 23 of the CGST Rules. Though it is time barred, we are inclined to wave the limitation and direct the petitioner to file an application for reviving of G.S.T. registration before the Revenue within a period of 21 days, hence. He shall also comply the other provisions of Section 30 of the U.K. GST Act, that is submission of returns for the defaulted six months and any further completed months after the revocation. In such case, if dues are found to be due from the petitioner and he pays the same, then his case shall be considered liberally by the revenue and shall be disposed of within a period of 30 days.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1174 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Attachment of Bank account of petitioner - Remission of deficit court fees of Rs.600/- during the course of this day - petition dismissed on the ground that the appellant / writ petitioner is not aware of the fate of the revisional application, which it had filed against the order passed by the appellate authority dated 7th February, 2014 - HELD THAT:- The appeal is partly allowed and the order passed in the writ petition is set aside with a direction to the appellant to file an application before the revisional authority clearly setting out all facts and requesting the revisional authority to recall the order disposing of the revisional application and if such an application is filed, the revisional authority shall take up the same and pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the authorised representative of the appellant.

  As stated by the learned Advocate for the appellant that sum of Rs.16,51,924/- has been recovered after the writ petition was dismissed, we feel the interest of revenue has been sufficiently safeguarded as more than 50% of the total dues has already been recovered. Therefore, the garnishee order for the balance amount shall be kept in abeyance and abide by the orders to be passed by the revisional authority in terms of the above direction.

  The attachment of the bank account of the appellant shall be lifted within a period of three days from the date of receipt of the server copy of this judgment in order to enable the appellant to operate its bank account - Application disposed off.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1173 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL
  

  Classification of goods - SAC Code - rate of GST - outward supply - support services - mangroves being cultivated and nurtured at coastal communities - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the appellant is engaged in business of cultivation, planting and nurturing of mangrove seeds and seedlings for the primary purpose of environmental protection by way of enhancing biodiversity and re-establishing the ecosystem functions and such services are not related to cultivation of plants for food, fibre, fuel, raw material or other similar products. Therefore, none of the activities carried out by the appellant for the purpose as laid down in the agreement qualifies to be agriculture as claimed by him which is essential to be classified under SAC 9986.

  The services rendered by the appellant can be classified as ‘Other environmental protection services’ and not as ‘Support services to agriculture, forestry, fishing, animal husbandry’ - there are no infirmity in the ruling pronounced by the WBAAR being that the supply of services for plantation of mangrove seeds and seedlings in coastal areas shall be covered under Serial Number 32 of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 having SAC 9994 and shall attract GST @ 18%.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1136 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
  

  Refund of the additional tax burden suffered by the petitioner in the light of introduction of the GST regime w.e.f. 1st July, 2017 onwards - HELD THAT:- The plain reading of the new amended Order of the State Government dated 30.09.2022 would reflect that the State Government has now for the Water Resources Department has taken a decision to ensure that the Additional Tax burden that has suffered by a Contractor in the event of a new tax that is imposed, the additional burden shall be reimbursed to the contract, subject to the Contractor furnishing the details of the difference of the tax liability and the additional tax that was required to be paid by the Contractor.

  It is the further contentions of the counsel for the petitioner that even otherwise the decision not to reimburse would be too harsh a decision on the part of the respondents, for the reason that the Contractor is not at fault in any manner for incurring the additional tax liability that has occurred because of the introduction of any new tax. The bid and the price quoted therein by the Contractor always is taking into consideration the existing taxes and for which he is liable to pay and deposit. In case of additional liability incurred on account of the imposition of a new tax, the Department has to have a mechanism of compensating the Contractor to the extent of the additional tax liability that the Contractor had to bare - It goes without saying that this aspect has been fairly appreciated by the Government itself and had taken a decision of reimbursing the additional tax burden to the Contractors when they had issued Orders for the various Departments under the State Government like: PWD, Chhattisgarh Rural and Development Agency and Chhattisgarh Urban Administration and Development Department and subsequently now vide the order dated 30.09.2022 in the Water Resource Department as well.

  The impugned therefore deserves to be and is accordingly set aside / quashed - Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1135 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Classification of goods - marine paint used on the hull of the ships - anti-fouling paint should be considered part of the ship or not? - N/N. 1/2017, dated 28 June 2017 - HELD THAT:- The Authority has observed that the paint generally means any liquid or composition that, after application to a substrate in a thin layer, converts into a solid film. There are various types of paints; one type is anti-fouling paint, which falls under Item 3208. It was the Petitioner's case that the goods marine paint would be covered under Sr.No.252 being part of goods falling under Headings-8901, 8902, 8904, 8905, 8906 and 8907 and; therefore, the enquiry before the Authority was restricted to ascertaining whether goods- marine paint supplied by the Petitioner would be a part of goods Headings 8901, 8902, 8904, 8905, 8906 and 8907. Both the Authorities concluded that just because, as per the Merchant Shipping Act, the marine paint is mandatory to be applied, it does not become part of the ship. This is a considered opinion reached by both Authorities - both the Authorities have adopted the approach required for the classification of the goods in the context of the application of tax, and the Authorities have not widened the enquiry to ascertain various issues sought to be raised by the Petitioner as regards the legality of sailing of the vessel without the marine paint.

  The contention of the Petitioner primarily centered around the necessity to apply marine paint to increase the longevity and productivity of the vessel, and the legal position requiring that the paint to be used on a ship without which it cannot sail and requirements of International Conventions for applying anti-fouling system. Though the learned counsel for the Petitioner is right in contending that the argument of the learned counsel for the State that paint is just one part of the anti-fouling system was not a ground on which both the Authorities decide the question, the conclusion arrived at by the Authorities cannot be said to be without considering the material on record.

  In the case at hand, the Authority was considering the interpretation and classification of entries under the CGST Act. In our opinion, the Appellate Authority has rightly distinguished all these decisions cited observing that under this regime prime test is whether the product is marketable or not. Similarly, the Appellate Authority has also referred to and distinguished the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of SURGICHEM VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT [1991 (7) TMI 303 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. The Authorities have dealt with the decisions cited before the Authorities, and there is no fundamental error in their approach.

  The view taken by the Authority and Appellate Authority is based on the material placed before it. The Petitioner seeks to convert this limited enquiry in respect of Advance Ruling into an appellate enquiry, which is not permissible to be undertaken in writ jurisdiction. The scrutiny in writ jurisdiction of the orders passed by the Authority and the Appellate Authority is minimal. The Petitioner, who sought an advance ruling as to which entry the marine paint should fall, was given full opportunity of hearing - Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1134 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Cancellation of GST registration granted to the petitioner - application for revocation was beyond the time prescribed under Section 30 of the CGST/SGST Acts - HELD THAT:- It is a principle at the heart of administrative law that where the law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner alone. - The action taken by the officer by initiating proceedings in form GST REG-31 of the CGST Rules and completing the proceedings for cancellation of registration by issuing Ext.P1 order is clearly without jurisdiction. If the Officer wishes to initiate proceedings for cancellation of registration, he must issue a notice as specified in Rule 21 of the CGST Rules and in form GST REG-17 and not in form GST REG-31.

  The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in AGGARWAL DYEING AND PRINTING WORKS VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 OTHER (S) [2022 (4) TMI 864 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has considered an almost identical situation. The Court considered the contents of the show cause notice issued in that case and came to the conclusion that the show cause notice was woefully inadequate inasmuch as it did not specify the reasons which compelled the Officer to initiate action for cancellation of registration.

  The Supreme Court in GOVERNMENT OF KERALA & ANR. VERSUS MOTHER SUPERIOR ADORATION CONVENT [2021 (3) TMI 93 - SUPREME COURT] has taken the view that where concessions or exemptions are granted with a specific purpose of promoting or encouraging a certain activity the principle that such concessions/exemptions must be interpreted in favour of the revenue does not apply - In the facts of these cases, this Court is concerned with the provisions of Sections 29/30 of CGST/SGST which gives to the power to cancel registration and also to revoke it. These are not provisions which need to be interpreted with reference to the principles laid down in the COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. DILIP KUMAR AND COMPANY & ORS. [2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SUPREME COURT] and in GOVERNMENT OF KERALA & ANR. VERSUS MOTHER SUPERIOR ADORATION CONVENT [2021 (3) TMI 93 - SUPREME COURT].

  The quashing of the impugned order of cancellation will not have the effect of absolving the petitioner of any fiscal liability - Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1133 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  

  Suspension of GST registration of petitioner - no additional place of business or any business in the principal place was found - HELD THAT:- As section 30 of the Assam GST Act, 2017 provides alternative and efficacious remedy to the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation of the registration, the Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner be relegated to the concerned designated authority for availing remedy as prescribed under the provision of section 30(1) of the Assam GST Act, 2017.

  As the petitioners have approached this Court within the period of limitation prescribed under section 30(1) of the Assam GST Act, the Court is inclined to provide that in the event the petitioner makes an application before the Officer empowered to deal with the prayer for revocation of cancellation of registration within a period of 15(fifteen) days from the date of this order, the concerned authorities shall accept the application for revocation filed by the petitioner under section 30 of the Assam GST Act, 2017 and if such an application is made/ filed within the extended time, such an application shall not be dismissed on the ground of delay.

  Application disposed off.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1132 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
  

  Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months - HELD THAT:- Since, the petitioner failed to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months and show cause notice has been sent to him, it is directed that the petitioner shall file an application for revocation under Section 30 of the GST Act in terms of Rule 23 of the GST Rules. Though it is time barred, we are inclined to wave the limitation and direct the petitioner to file application for revocation within 21 days hence. He shall also comply the other provision of Section 30 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, i.e, submission of returns for the defaulted six months and any further completed months after the revocation. In such case if dues is found to be due from the petitioner and he pays the same than his case shall be considered liberally by the revenue and shall be dispose of within 15 days.

  Application disposed off.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1131 - PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
  

  Seeking grant of bail - fake ITC passed without any actual supply of goods - bogus firms - offence under Section 132 (1) (b) of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- As far as creation of firm is concerned, again since the entire process was online, at least, technical investigation in this regard is required and is wanting. However, considering that investigation is being carried out, also the fact that as on date, there is no independent evidence other than the statements against the accused, as also, the fact that he has already spent more than 35 days in JC, as also, considering that co-accused has already been admitted to bail and Department has not sought the cancellation of the bail of co-accused, the present accused Shubham Goyal is also admitted to bail on furnishing of bail bonds/surety bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned MM/Duty MM subject to the conditions imposed.

  Application allowed.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1130 - PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
  

  Seeking grant of Regular Bail - fraudulent transactions - it is suspected that spurious goods have been exported and ITC claimed fraudulently - HELD THAT:- The case of the Department seems to be that there is a chain of documents without any actual supply of products while simultaneously there is no claim that the initial tax payment was not made and the entire claim of ITC in the chain is without any input tax deposit. Rather the Department is suggesting that, even though, there is payment of tax at one stage, all ITCs claimed in the chain are without any supply of goods. In the alternative and in my view, to explain the inherent contradiction in the said argument, the counsel for the Department has coined the parallel theory that if there was actual purchase of cigarettes by M/s Radiant Traders, the same were perhaps sold in the market without invoicing and spurious smoking mixture was used as a cover to explain its disappearance, as also, used for the purposes of claiming input tax credit for the export of the smoking mixture. This is proposed to be established by firstly, the lab test report dated 02.11.2022 and secondly, the statement of the applicant/accused.

  Surprisingly, even though, the report was given by the chemist on 02.11.2022, that is even before the arrest of the accused, the Department made no further attempt to seek an opinion from another lab on the subject. Rather, the Department chose to arrest the accused and even after the arrest and up till today the samples have not been sent to any other lab to seek answer to query no. 2 and 3 raised by the IO as far as back on 19.10.2022. The Department seems content with the assumed position that Tobacco was not used in the smoking mixture, which assumption is in the teeth of the inconclusive opinion given by the chemist on 02.11.2022 - Why the Department chose not to send the samples to another lab seeking answers to query no. 2 and 3 when the accused is languishing in Jail, that too, in the clear absence of any opinion on the presence of Nicotine and Tobacco in the product? The benefit of this serious lapse in the investigation has to be given to the accused at this stage.

  In view of the discussion pertaining to the assumption of the Department regarding non use of Tobacco as a input, even though the report of the chemical examiner being inconclusive on the presence of nicotine and tobacco for want of testing facility, the period already undergone by accused in JC and want of any evidence other than the statement of the accused and the aforesaid discussion, the accused is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Ld. MM/Duty MM and also subject to the conditions imposed.

  Bail application allowed.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1102 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Cancellation of registration of petitioner - no valid reason provided - HELD THAT:- Perusal of both these orders dated 26.05.2022 and 11.10.2022 show that no valid reason was given for cancellation of registration. Despite requested for, no details were provided and prima facie reply of the petitioners have not been considered. To our opinion, the show-cause notice dated 26.05.2022 does not specify the reason for which the allegation of wrongful availment or utilization of Input Tax Credit (ITC) or refund of tax is made. As the show-cause notice does not contain reason to justify the action of the respondent, it is violative of principles of natural justice.

  As held by this Court in AGGARWAL DYEING AND PRINTING WORKS VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 OTHER (S) [2022 (4) TMI 864 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], reasons are heart and soul of the order and non-communication of the same itself amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing resulting into miscarriage of justice. Therefore, applying the same principle, as the show-cause notice dated 26.05.2022 is bereft of any reasons, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and hereby quashed and set aside. The order of cancellation of registration dated 11.10.2022 is also quashed and set aside.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1101 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
  

  Excess claim of input tax credit (ITC) - show cause notice as well as notice of personal hearing were uploaded in the common portal which is an accepted mode of service of notice under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- On due consideration, we are of the view that it would only be in the interest of justice if the petitioner is granted an opportunity of hearing by the Assistant Commissioner before passing a fresh order in accordance with law.

  The matter remanded back to the file of Assistant Commissioner (ST), Maredpally Circle, Hyderabad - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1100 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN
  

  Levy of GST - Supply of service or not - services provided by the University of Kola relating to affiliation granted to colleges for imparting education - amount collected by way of affiliation fee, are exempted vide S.No 66 of Notification No.12/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 or not - HELD THAT:- The amendment was proposed to exempt services relating to admission to, or conduct of examination for admission to all educational institutions, as defined in the notification (definition 2(y) of Notification No. 12/2017-CT(R)). Thus the entry at 66(b)(iv) seeks to exempt only those services provided to such institution in relation to admission of students or conduct of examination for such admission to all the educational Institutions, including the higher educational institutions, which were not exempted up to this amendment.

  On examination of clarification in Circular No. 177/09/2022-TRU, we don't found that affiliation fees so collected by applicant from its affiliated colleges is exempt. Further we would like to refer Circular No. 151/07/2021-GST dated 17.06.2021 regarding Clarification regarding GST on supply of various services by Central and State Board (such as National Board of Examination) wherein it is clarified at SI.4 (iii) that 18% GST will be applied to other services.

  In the case at hand, it is evident that the affiliation services provided by the applicant enables the said institution to conduct the course/programme and do not relate to admission of students to such course/programme in the said institutions or conduct of examination for such admission in the said institution. Also, the exempted services on the conduct of examination is that related to the admission to such institution and not related to the examination based on which degree/title, etc are conferred to the students, as is being claimed by the applicant, though we do not part any opinion on the claim of the applicant that they extend such services to the institutions by extending the affiliation - affiliation fees so collected by the applicant is not exempted under the entry SI.No.66 of Notification No. 12/2017-C.T.(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1041 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - it is alleged that the appellant was a non-existing dealer - demand of late fee - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the provision deals with a person, who fails to furnish the returns either under Section 39 or Section 45 or Section 44. In the instant case, the revenue does not state that the appellant failed to furnish its return within the due date. The reason for non-furnishing the return is cancellation of the registration on the ground that the appellant is a non-existing dealer.

  This order was set aside by the appellate authority holding that the order was passed on a factually incorrect premise. If that be so, the appellant cannot be penalised by demanding late fee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Section 47 does not stand attracted.

  The demand of late fee from the appellant @ Rs.5,000/- per return is without jurisdiction and not tenable in the eye of law. It is pointed out by the learned Advocate appearing for the official respondents that unless appropriate direction is given to the concerned respondent, the appellant will not be able to electronically file its return. In the light of the above, the following directions are issued - Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1040 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Classification of manufactured goods - preliminary ground on which the show cause notice was challenged is by contending that the authority has pre-decided the issue and the show cause notice is pre-meditated and it is not a show cause notice and consequently no useful purpose would be served in giving reply by the appellants - HELD THAT:- On going through the proceedings of the assessing officer dated 26^th September, 2022 it prima facie appears to be an order and the manner of issuing show cause notice has not been rightly understood by the authority. Partly the appellants have to be blamed because the appellants for the query raised by the authority has misconstrued the scope of the query and proceeded to make elaborate factual submissions as well as relied upon several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts. If the appellants had restricted their reply only to the extent query raised, this problem could have been averted. Thus, not only the authority committed a mistake in proceeding to reject all the contentions and then issued the show cause notice, equally the appellants also committed a mistake in mentioning facts which were not required to be done pursuant the query raised by the authority.

  The entire proceedings have to be redone in an opposite manner. We are conscious of the fact that if the matter is remanded back it will be dealt with by the very same officer but, however, we are confident that the very same officer will have an open mind and issue a show cause notice in a proper manner giving adequate opportunity to the appellants to submit their reply and it is thereafter the show cause notice has to be adjudicated. The manner in which the authority has proceeded to issue the notice dated 26^th September, 2022 does not satisfy the legal requirements.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1039 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Refund claim for excess payment of tax - HELD THAT:- Though there were two issues involved before the learned Appellate Authority, one was whether the recipients of services or goods can apply for refund claim for excess payment of tax or not and this issue was held in favour of the petitioners by the learned Tribunal. Another issue was whether the building purchased by the petitioners from its purchaser, namely M/s. Eveready Industries Limited is taxable under the CGST Act or not and on this issue learned Appellate Authority has held against the assessees/petitioners by elaborate discussion in its order with cogent reasons.

  There are no reason to interfere with the aforesaid impugned order - this is not a case where the impugned order is without jurisdiction or there is violation of principle of natural justice or there is any procedural irregularity in the matter and/or Constitutional validity of any provisions of law is involved even though no alternative remedy is available - petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1038 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Deposit during search proceedings - whether the cumulative sum of Rs.1,80,10,000/- deposited on behalf of the petitioner- concern, during search proceedings carried out between 16.02.2022 and 17.02.2022, was a voluntary act or not? - HELD THAT:- The violation of the safeguards put in place by the Act, Rules and by the Court, to ensure that unnecessary harassment is not caused to the assessee, required adherence by the official respondents/revenue, as otherwise, the collection of such amounts towards tax, interest and penalty would give it a colour of coercion, which is not backed by the authority of law.

  Failure to follow the prescribed procedure will, as in this case, have us conclude that the deposit of tax, interest and penalty was not voluntary - The reason that the officers of the official respondents/revenue have been asked, perhaps, to have the amounts deposited the day after the search is concluded, is, to also give space to the concerned person to seek legal advice, and only thereafter deposit tax, interest and penalty, wherever applicable, upon a proper self-ascertainment.

  The aforementioned amounts which were deposited on behalf of the petitioner-concern, lacked an element of voluntariness - the official respondents/revenue are directed to return Rs.1,80,10,000/- to the petitioner-concern, along with interest at the rate of 6% (simple) per annum. The interest will run from 17.02.2022 till the date of payment.

  The writ petition is disposed of.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1037 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Refund of ITC - option of either seeking refund or carrying forward the ITC to GST regime - provisional refund order has been issued after processing the refund application - HELD THAT:- Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a counter from Revenue is really not necessary. This Court is of the view that the main writ petition can be disposed of by making a simple order after having heard both sides.

  It is clear from the narrative thus far that the dealer has two options i.e., refund or carrying forward the ITC to GST regime, the dealer in the case on hand, has opted for the former not the latter. The common portal giving dealer the option for choosing former or latter also is now active till 2024. In such circumstances, the dealer cannot be compelled to opt for one of the two i.e., refund or carrying forward the ITC to GST regime. It is after all an option given to the dealer. In the case on hand, the case of writ petitioner dealer stands buttressed by the provisional refund order made by the same sole respondent and issue of what is referred to as 'FORM-P' clearly quantified the entitlement of writ petitioner at Rs.13,36,741/-.

  This Court has no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the impugned notice has been erroneously issued and the same deserves to be interfered with / set aside - Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1036 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Refund claim - rejection on the ground that they are time barred - Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Exclusion of certain period during Covid 19 pandemic - HELD THAT:- Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 deals with refund of tax. Section 54(1) states that if a refund is sought of any tax, then an application has to be made before the expiry of two years from the relevant date - The impugned orders make no reference to which category the Petitioner’s claims would fall and what would be the relevant date i.e. starting point for limitation period for the Petitioner’s claim for refund.

  For the purpose of ascertaining whether the limitation period in the Petitioner’s case stood extended/ protected by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as above, first the relevant date for starting of the limitation will have to be established. The factual position as per the explanation to Section 54 as regards the Relevant Date will have to be determined first and then legal position as laid down in the above decisions can be applied - the impugned orders, to the extent of rejection of the refund claims of the Petitioner for the periods from April 2018 to March 2019 and from April 2019 to December 2019, are liable to be quashed and set aside and the applications for these two periods are to be restored to the file of the concerned Assistant Commissioner.

  The Assistant Commissioner will examine the case of the Petitioner afresh both on the ground of limitation and on merits - Writ petition is disposed of.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1035 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Refund claim of tax wrongly paid or allowing ITC to the correct party - inadvertent mistake in filling the GST number in the GSTR-1 - seeking permission to rectify the details of the recipient of the service in the form of GSTR-1 - Difficulty in following the Circular as the GST portal did not permit to rectify the defects

  HELD THAT:- Admittedly, when Rule 97A of the CGST Rules also permits manual filing, restriction in Circular, dated 18.11.2019, seeking refund by electronic mode only may not be proper. The amounts that were paid by the petitioner furnishing the incorrect details cannot be taken as a tax due to the respondents, legally. When such is the scenario, the respondents cannot contend that the claim, if any, of the petitioner, is barred by limitation - it is very clear that the petitioner cannot be compelled to follow the Circular of the year 2019, which debarred the petitioner from manual filing. The petitioner cannot be compelled to do certain things which are impossible to be performed.

  The respondents cannot retain the disputed amount, that are paid to them, due to inadvertent error while keying the name of M/s.Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Kandlakoya village, Medchal Mandal, Telangana State - As the Circular of the year 2019 restricts only electronic filing and as the contention of the respondents that the claim of the petitioner is barred by limitation is not acceptable, the respondents cannot retain the amount, which was paid by the petitioner.

  The Writ Petition is allowed.

  ---

1234567........ 97