|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 11456 Records
-
2024 (5) TMI 315 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the appellate authority - Appeal u/s 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017 - appellate authority failed to exercise jurisdiction in rejecting the application for condonation of delay, inter alia, on the ground that the same was filed beyond one month from the prescribed period of limitation, as provided in Section 107(4) of the said Act - HELD THAT:- An identical issue had fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.K. Chakraborty & Sons [2023 (12) TMI 290 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT]. The Division Bench of this Court, while considering the scope and ambit of Section 107 of the said Act and the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 on the basis of the provisions contained in Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act 1963 and by placing reliance on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Superintending Engineer/Dehar Power House Circle Bhakra Beas Management Board (PW) Slapper and another versus Excise and Taxation Officer Sunder Nagar/Assessing Authority [2019 (11) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT], had concluded that in absence of non obstante clause rendering Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act 1963, non-applicable and in absence of specific exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, it would be improper to read implied exclusion thereof. Having regard to the above, in my view the appellate authority is not denude of its power to condone the delay beyond one month from the prescribed period of limitation as provided for in Section 107(4) of the said Act.
The appellate authority had failed to exercise jurisdiction in refusing to entertain the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, since the same was filed beyond one month, beyond the prescribed period of Limitation as provided for in Section 107(4) of the said Act.
The explanation provided by the petitioner in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation act is satisfactory and delay has been sufficiently explained. Having regard thereof the delay in preferring the appeal under Section 107 of the said Act is condoned and appeal is restored to its original file and number.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 314 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Time Limitation for filing refund claim - Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic - whether refund claim has to be filed by the exporter two years from the date of shipment? - HELD THAT:- In this case, the exports were made by the petitioner between 24.04.2018 to 25.02.2019. It is evident that the last date for filing the refund claim would have expired at the time when the country was under partial/intermittent/full lockdown due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic from third week of March 2020. The Hon'ble Supreme Court taking note of this earlier extended the period of limitation. Taking note of the same, the Central Government also promulgated an ordinance called Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Ordinary 2020, which was replaced by TOLA Act 2020. The Central Government has now issued notification No.13/2022-Central Tax dated 15.07.2022. By virtue of the above notification, the period from 1st day of March 2020 to 28th of February 2022 for computation for period of limitation for filing refund claim U/s.54 or under 55 of the CGST Act 2017 has been excluded.
It is noticed that neither the 1st respondent nor the 2nd respondent had the benefit of the above notification when the orders were passed. Under these circumstances, impugned order upholding the rejection of the refund claim of the 2nd respondent are set aside and the case is remitted back to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the petitioner's refund claim afresh in the light of the above mentioned notification.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2024 (5) TMI 313 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Rejection of refund claim - Export of services - Export of software development services - petitioner submitted that the first respondent has wrongly affirmed the order of the second respondent by confusing the status of the subsidiary as a distinct person in accordance with explanation 1 in Section 8 of IGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The impugned order passed by the first respondent fairly concludes that the petitioner has satisfied the requirements of Section 2(6)(i) to (iv) of IGST Act, 2017.
Admittedly, the petitioner and its subsidiary are two distinct entities and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of Section 2(6)(v) of IGST Act, 2017. The doctrine of the authority for advance Ruling IN RE: SEGOMA IMAGING TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [2018 (12) TMI 650 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA] cannot be applied to the facts of this case - It cannot be said that the petitioner and its subsidiary are not merely establishment of a distinct person in accordance with the explanation I in Section 8 of the IGST Act, 2017.
The second respondent is directed to process the re-fund claim of the petitioner together with interest payable in accordance with the provisions of the Act as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 312 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Time limitation for filing appeal - petitioner did not file any appeal either within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 107 of the RGST Act, 2017/ the CGST Act, 2017 or within the maximum period thereafter which could be condoned - liability of tax with interest and penalty on royalty - HELD THAT:- Present is a case where the petitioner did not even file appeal and allowed the order passed in assessment proceedings to become final and thereafter approached this Court by filing writ petition seeking to challenge the determination of tax, interest and penalty by the competent authority vide order dated 09.02.2023. Present is not a case where the order under Section 74 of the RGST Act, 2017/ the CGST Act, 2017 levying tax along with interest and penalty was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Even according to the petitioner, he was issued show cause notice and thereafter, impugned order was passed. In the writ petition, no plausible explanation has been offered as to why the petitioner did not take recourse to the remedy of statutory appeal.
It, therefore, appears that the petitioner consciously did not choose to take recourse to the remedy of appeal as provided under Section 107 of the RGST Act, 2017/the CGST Act, 2017, but waited for the expiry of the period of limitation for filing appeal as also the maximum period of delay which could be condoned in the exercise of powers conferred upon the appellate authority under the provisions of Section 107 of the RGST Act, 2017/ the CGST Act, 2017.
Having not preferred an appeal, the petition in the present case, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) LTU, KAKINADA & ORS. VERSUS M/S. GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LIMITED [2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT] is not maintainable.
Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 311 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Time limitation - appeal not filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 107 of the RGST Act, 2017/ the CGST Act, 2017 - Challenge to Show Cause Notice - Levy of tax liability along with interest and penalty on Royalty - HELD THAT:- Present is a case where the petitioner did not even file appeal and allowed the order passed in assessment proceedings to become final and thereafter approached this Court by filing writ petition seeking to challenge the determination of tax, interest and penalty by the competent authority vide order dated 13.03.2023. Present is not a case where the order u/s 74 of the RGST Act, 2017/ the CGST Act, 2017 levying tax along with interest and penalty was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Even according to the petitioner, he was issued show cause notice and thereafter, impugned order was passed.
In the writ petition, no plausible explanation has been offered as to why the petitioner did not take recourse to the remedy of statutory appeal. It, therefore, appears that the petitioner consciously did not choose to take recourse to the remedy of appeal as provided under Section 107 of the RGST Act, 2017/the CGST Act, 2017, but waited for the expiry of the period of limitation for filing appeal as also the maximum period of delay which could be condoned in the exercise of powers conferred upon the appellate authority under the provisions of Section 107 of the RGST Act, 2017/ the CGST Act, 2017.
Having not preferred an appeal, the petition in the present case, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) LTU, KAKINADA & ORS. VERSUS M/S. GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LIMITED [2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT], is not maintainable.
Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 310 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - denial of input tax credit - demand of differential input tax - input tax credit based on the wrong GSTIN wrongly availed - HELD THAT:- As far as the denial of input tax credit is concerned, there appears to be discrepancy in the GST and the number given by the Supplier in the invoice raised by the Supplier on the petitioner. The petitioner can get suitable certificate from the supplier that the sale was indeed made to the petitioner.
It is noticed that the petitioner had filed returns for the assessment year 2017-2018 on 30.04.2022, which is the belated returns filed by the petitioner. In the return that was filed belatedly by the petitioner, the petitioner has accepted the short payment declared as the taxable turnover and yet had failed to pay the tax in time. The petitioner paid the tax only on 04.06.2022 - There is an inordinate delay in payment admitted tax liability in the return that was filed on 30.04.2022 for the assessment year 2017-2018. The petitioner cannot take advantage of its own mistake and state that the petitioner is not liable to pay penalty on account of belated filing of returns in GSTR 9 on 30.04.2022.
There is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as tax was belatedly paid on 04.06.2022. The interest on belated payment of tax for the month of July, 2017, was remitted by the petitioner only on 27.12.2022. The payment was not within 30 days from the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice dated 22.09.2022. The Show Cause Notice dated 22.09.2022 preceded an audit, issuance of audit report in GST ADT-02 on 19.08.2022 - the Writ Petition is not maintainable. It is therefore liable to be dismissed.
The petitioner can give proper explanation for the discrepancy in the GST number and in the invoices raised by the supplier, namely Vinvent Chemilab Private Limited and Moorthy Industries - Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 309 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Refund claim of encashed amount by the revenue - Direction to withdraw recovery proceedings by issuing a demand draft equivalent to the Bank Guarantee - circular dated 18.03.2020 - HELD THAT:- It is deemed just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by directing the respondent to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.11,21,840/- encashed by the respondent on 01.02.2024 within a period of one month from today. It is further directed that immediately upon the respondent refunding the aforesaid amount back to the petitioner, petitioner would furnish a fresh bank guarantee within a period of one week thereafter which would be valid for a period of one year.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 308 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - order challenged on the ground that the petitioner's reply was disregarded - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The petitioner's reply was disregarded by categorising such reply as an unauthorised reply. It is unclear as to why the reply was described as unauthorised. In any event, the impugned order is vitiated by non consideration of the petitioner's reply. Consequently, such order is unsustainable.
The impugned order dated 29.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (5) TMI 307 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Wrong availment of transitional Input Tax Credit - request for an adjournment was not responded to and that a personal hearing was not provided in breach of sub-section (4) of Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The reply dated 20.12.2023 of the petitioner refers to the death of the mother of one of the partners on 11.12.2023. On account of the same, the petitioner requested for further time to reply to the show cause notice. The respondent did not respond to the request for adjournment and instead issued the impugned order. While a personal hearing was offered under the reminder dated 16.12.2023, the order is unsustainable because the request of the petitioner for an adjournment was not considered and no personal hearing was offered pursuant to such reply.
The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, the respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the petitioner's reply.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 306 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the tax liability pertains to a mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns. Since the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled, at a minimum, the petitioner has little reason to continually monitor the GST portal.
The petitioner submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.
The principles of natural justice demand that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to contest the tax demand. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Writ Petition is disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 305 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - order challenged on the ground that documents submitted by the petitioner were not duly considered and that the petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The entire tax liability is on account of the disparity between the petitioner's GSTR 3B return and the auto-populated of GSTR 2A return. In accordance with Circular No.183, the petitioner obtained a certificate from the supplier albeit belatedly. The reply of the petitioner indicates that documents in support of the contention that the purchases were genuine were submitted. In these circumstances, it is just and necessary that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to effectively deal with the tax demand after putting the petitioner on terms.
The impugned order is set aside on condition that the petitioner remits a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the disputed tax demand - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 304 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Liability of tax arising on account of inadvertent error - mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns - error was committed by providing details pertaining to the same invoice more than once - HELD THAT:- The petitioner's explanation was disregarded as unacceptable and as an after-thought merely on the ground that the petitioner did not amend the GSTR 1 statement on or before March 2019. In the face of the documents submitted by the petitioner, the matter requires reconsideration so as to ascertain whether the purchasers indeed did not avail of excess input tax credit on the basis of the duplicate invoices. For such reason, the impugned order call for interference.
The respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2024 (5) TMI 303 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - classification of oil coolers as heat exchangers - to be classified within HSN 8419 or 8708 - main grievance of the petitioner is that the Chartered Engineer's certificate was disregarded while concluding that oil coolers should be classified under chapter 8708 instead of 8419 - HELD THAT:- The impugned order is dated 30.12.2023 and the period of limitation, without condonation, expires by the end of this month. Since the petitioner challenged the order by way of this writ petition, which was filed on or about 16.03.2024, it is just and necessary that if a statutory appeal is filed, such appeal is received and disposed of on merits.
The petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the appellate authority within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2024 (5) TMI 269 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the Petitioner and is a cryptic order - demand including penalty - HELD THAT:- The impugned order, however, after recording the narration records that no satisfactory reply and no substantial documents were submitted by the taxpayer - The Proper Officer has opined that the taxpayer has not filed a satisfactory reply nor substantial documents.
The observation in the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply dated 23.12.2023 filed by the Petitioner is a detailed reply with supporting documents. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion. He merely held that the reply is not satisfactory and no substantial documents have been submitted by the taxpayer which ex-facie shows that the Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner - Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that any further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the Petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the Petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details.
The impugned order dated 29.12.2023 cannot be sustained and is set aside. The Show Cause Notice is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. The Proper Officer is directed to withdraw all punitive actions taken against the petitioner pursuant to impugned order dated 29.12.2023, inter-alia, blocking of credit ledger and the provisional attachment of property including bank account, if any - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 268 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order does not take into consideration the replies submitted by the Petitioner and is a cryptic order - HELD THAT:- The impugned order after recording the narration records that the reply uploaded by the taxpayer is incomplete, not duly supported by adequate documents and unable to clarify the issue - The observation in the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is not sustainable for the reasons that the replies dated 25.10.2023, 02.11.2023 and 14.11.2023 filed by the Petitioner are detailed replies with supporting documents. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion. He merely held that the reply is unsatisfactory, incomplete, not duly supported by adequate documents and unable to clarify the issue which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner.
Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that any further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the Petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the Petitioner to clarify its replies or furnish further documents/details.
The impugned order dated 30.12.2023 cannot be sustained and is set aside. The show cause notice is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 267 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Scope of SCN - adjudicating authority has traveled beyond the scope of adjudication notice inasmuch as against show cause notice issued proposing to create demand of GST - Violation of essential requirements of rules of natural justice - HELD THAT:- No useful purpose may be served either in keeping the present petition or calling for a counter affidavit or relegating the petitioner to the forum of appeal. Once the Act requires by way of a mandatory provision that the demand arising under an adjudication order may not exceed the demand for which show cause notice may have been issued, there is no room to entertain any doubt as to that. Also, rules of natural justice are far too well established to allow any exception to be made in that regard. Unless, the petitioner had been put to notice with respect to the demand proposed to be created by the adjudication order and unless he had been given adequate opportunity to present his case, the order that may arise may remain procedurally defective.
The writ petition is disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 266 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Applicable rate of tax (GST) - Classification of goods - mango pulp supplied to 100% Export Oriented Unit which further exports such pulp outside the country after minor processing / re-packing - to be classified under residuary entry No. 453 or not - HELD THAT:- Prior to the 22nd meeting of the GST Council, so far as mango sliced and dried are concerned, the GST rate was applicable at 12% from 1st July 2017 as per Notification No. 1/2017 in Schedule – II which was reduced to 5% as per recommendations of the GST Council as per Notification No. 34/2017 dated 13th October 2017. While the GST Council in its 47th meeting has clarified that only mangoes sliced and dried are liable to reduction of rate of tax at the rate of 5% from 12% and therefore, to clarify that mangoes other than sliced and dried, the third category of entry was inserted in the category vide Entry No. 16 of Schedule – II as per Notification No. 6/2022 dated 18th July 2022. Therefore, for all purposes and intention Entry of rate of 12% would govern the product “mango pulp”, which was not specifically included in Entry No. 30A, which provides for mango sliced, dried.
The impugned circular dated 3rd August 2022 only clarifies the insertion of Entry No. 16 vide Notification No. 6/2022 and therefore, the argument and contention raised by the petitioner that by the impugned circular, the GST rate of 12% sought to be introduced is without any basis. For “mango pulp”, the GST rate was 12% from 1st July 2017 as per Notification No. 1/2017 - The “mango pulp” was not included in the Entry No. 30A of the Schedule – II, which came into effect by Notification No. 34/2017. Therefore, there was a need for clarification by the GST Council in its 47th meeting held on 28th June 2022 to clarify that the third category of mango in HSN 0804 other than fresh and dried mangoes are required to be clarified to be taxed at the rate of 12%.
The impugned Notification and circular are not in the nature of amending the tax rate with increasing the tax rate with retrospective effect. In fact, they are clarificatory so far as the product “mango pulp” is concerned, as admittedly, Entry No. 30A does not include the “mango pulp”.
Therefore, the stand of the respondents that “mango pulp” would fall in the residuary category as the same was not included either in the Notification No. 1/2017 or covered by the Entry No. 30A is also not as per clarification made by the GST Council. Therefore, the respondents are also not justified to apply rate of 18% GST as per residuary Entry No. 453 as “mango pulp” would be falling under HSN 0804, which broadly categorized fresh and dried mangoes. Therefore, naturally, “mango pulp” would go with the mango sliced, dried and would be covered by mango sliced, dried attracting 12% rate prior to Notification No. 34/17. The GST Council has only clarified that the third category of mangoes other than “mango sliced and dried” would attract 12% of GST. Therefore, the contention of the respondents to tax on “mango pulp” at 18% is also not tenable.
The case of the petitioners that word “mango” was removed from Entry No. 16, the petitioners would be liable to pay tax at 5% on mango sliced and dried as the “mango pulp” is neither mangosteens nor dried as per Serial No. 16 in Schedule – II under Chapter Heading 0804 nor the petitioners are entitled to exempted category as per Serial No. 51 of exemption Notification No. 2/2017, which pertains to mango fresh is very attractive at the first blush, however, considering the Notification nos. 1/2017, 34/0217 and 6/2022 together, the “mango pulp”, as per the recommendations of the GST Council, was to be taxed at the rate of 12% only as the same would not be falling in Entry No. 30A as mango sliced or dried.
There is no retrospective amendment of Entry No. 16, but the same is clarificatory only inserted by Notification No. 6/2022 and the impugned circular dated 3rd August 2022 where Entry No. 16 in Schedule – II has included “mangoes other than sliced, dried” which includes “mango pulp. Therefore rate can be said to be reduced from 12% to 5% only on “mango sliced, dried” and rate of 12% would continue to be applied to “mangoes other than mangoes sliced, dried” as per notification no. 6/22 as per the clarification of the GST Council as per minutes of the 47th meeting - the GST Council has clarified in its 47th meeting that tax rate would continue to apply at 12% other than “mango sliced, dried” for which the GST rate was reduced to 5% as per the recommendations of 27th meeting of the GST Council.
The petitioner is, therefore, liable to pay GST at the rate of 12% as per Entry no. 16 from 01.07.2017 and not 5% as per Entry No. 30A, which provides for “mangoes sliced, dried” only. The contention of the petitioners that there was an amendment to the rate Notification with effect from 18th July 2022 is not tenable. As such the Notification is only clarificatory and would apply with effect from 1st July 2017 as per Notification No. 1/2017. It is true that Section 9 of the CGST Act does not grant power to amend the rate Notification - The contention of the petitioner that as per HSN 0804, “mango pulp” would be covered by mangoes as per General Chapter Note, which includes fruits and dates, and therefore, only mangoes other than fresh mangoes is required to considered and as “mango pulp” is not a fresh mango and would be covered by entry No. 30A “mango sliced, dried” is not tenable in view of clarification made by the GST Council in its 47th meeting, wherein it is clearly mentioned that only “mangoes sliced, dried” would attract GST at 5% and remaining mango would be attracted GST at 12%. Therefore, the Notification No. 6/2022 is only inserting the word “mango” other than mango sliced, dried so as to clarify that all mangoes would fall in the same category other than “mango sliced, dried”.
Thus, as “mango pulp” would fall under the third category of “mangoes (other than mango sliced, dried)” would be liable to levy at the rate of 12% as per Entry No. 16 which was amended so as to clarify the intention of council to continue to levy GST at 12% on “mangoes (other than mango sliced, dried)” which would include “mango pulp” from 1st July 2017.
The impugned show cause notice is hereby quashed and set aside and the petitioners would be liable to pay GST at the rate of 12% from 1st July 2017 on the product “mango pulp” and not at the rate of 5% (as claimed by the petitioners) or 18% (as claimed by the respondents) for the period from 01.07 2017 to 18.07.2022 - petition allowed in part.
-
2024 (5) TMI 265 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Exemption from GST - pure services or supply of goods to the Notified Area Authority, Vapi - Notified Area Authority, Vapi is a “local authority” or “governmental authority”? - N/N. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 and the N/N. 12/2017-State Tax (Rate) dated 30th June 2017 - HELD THAT:- The contention of the petitioner that the Notified Area Authority, Vapi is discharging the function that like of the municipality, is not acceptable in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VERSUS CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. [2018 (7) TMI 137 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that 'the appellant is not covered by the definition of local authority as contained in Explanation to Section 10(20)'.
In view of the conspectus of law, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Area Development Authority is not akin to the municipality constituted under Article 243Q(1) of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of SAIJ GRAM PANCHAYAT VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS. [1999 (1) TMI 531 - SUPREME COURT], held that the Gujarat Industrial Development Act operates in a totally different sphere from Parts IX and IXA of the Constitution and the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961.
Considering the conspectus of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, the Notified Area Authority, Vapi cannot be considered as “local authority” or “Governmental Authority”. Therefore, the Notified Area Authority, Vapi is neither a “local authority” nor a “Governmental Authority” carrying out any activity in relation to any function entrusted to Panchayat under Article 243G of the Constitution or in relation to any function entrusted to Municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution.
Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 264 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Interest Liability on Electronic Credit Ledger Payments - Seeking levy of interest only on that part of the tax which is paid in cash - Peremptory recovery sought as against two objections raised on audit, relating to interest payable for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 - interpretation placed on the proviso fully absolving a debit from the Electronic Credit Ledger from the liability of interest - HELD THAT:- The audit report as was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner at paragraph no. 1 speaks of non-payment of the amount of interest amounting to Rs. 82,57,170/- on delayed payment through DRC-3 in the financial years 2018-19. The taxpayer was found to have offset the GST liabilities only on 12.05.2020 when the last date of furnishing monthly returns was on the succeeding month. The offsetting of GST liabilities occurs only on furnishing of return and the credit to the input tax ledger also occurs only on such furnishing of returns.
The order specifically speaks of a personal hearing afforded at the Monitoring Committee Meeting (MCM) and the Committee having rejected the submissions made and required the assessee to make the deposit of the interest amounts into the government account under the proper head of CGST/SGST interest.
The objections made under audit and the decisions of the Monitoring Committee does not oblige the Proper Officer to follow it verbatim and the Proper Officer is the person who has to consider the matter and arrive at a decision insofar as the final assessment is concerned as also process and effect recovery - The availability of input tax in the Electronic Credit Ledger would be inconsequential since the tax payment is only on furnishing of returns. The credit available in the Electronic Credit Ledger would be set off against output tax only on the furnishing of returns for the tax period, when debit is made from the Credit Ledger.
The writ petition is dismissed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 263 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Time limitation for filing appeal - recovery of short paid duty alongwith interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the subject matter of the show cause notice dated 30.06.2023, which has culminated in the order of the first respondent dated 14.02.2024, was the subject matter, in respect of which the petitioner wanted a clarification by filing an application before the second respondent on 05.06.2023, which has now culminated in the order passed by the second respondent dated 26.02.2024. Therefore, the challenge to the order passed by the second respondent on 26.02.2024 cannot be countenanced.
The petitioner is directed to file an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner as mentioned above within the period of limitation under Section 107(2) of the GST Act, 2017 - the writ petition is dismissed.
........
|
