|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 839 Records
-
2020 (6) TMI 499
Disciplinary Action against the liquidator / IP professional - Voluntary Liquidation of a company - delay of 18 months while making public announcement in newspapers - contravention of Section 208(2)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The DC is conscious of the fact that the profession of IP is in a stage in which IPs are striving to learn. However, it is incumbent upon the IPs to perform their duties diligently and act strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Code and the regulations made thereunder. They must endeavor to build and safeguard the reputation of the profession which should enjoy the trust of the society and inspire confidence of all the stakeholders - DC is also aware of the fact that the IP himself came forward and sought permission to make public announcement belatedly though there is no such provision. Further, non-compliance of law is not tolerable, however, coming forward at his own deserves some leniency.
The DC hereby imposes on Mr. Tarun Jaggi a monetary penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- and directs him to deposit the penalty amount by a crossed demand draft payable in favour of the 'Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India'. The Board in turn shall deposit the penalty amount in the Consolidated Fund of India - Mr. Tarun Jaggi shall not accept any new assignment as an IP till he deposits the monetary penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh only) with the Board and produces evidence to the Board of such deposit.
-
2020 (6) TMI 498
Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the alleged stock variation merely for reason that departmental delivery notes were not issued?
HELD THAT:- The Tribunal erroneously deleted such additions made on the ground that addition would be taken care of in that made with respect to suppression. The addition made on the basis of the stock variation, to cover probable omissions and suppression is only that up to September of the assessment year; till which date the assessee had not been using departmental delivery notes. The under-valuation is insofar as the months from October to March of the assessment year.
Computing the figures from the table available in the assessment order, the total products sent on departmental delivery note had a value of ₹ 3,50,01,765/- between October and March. The sale conceded as disclosed in the list available in the assessment year is ₹ 3,21,54,750/-. The difference comes to ₹ 28,47,015/-. The addition hence could be only of ₹ 28,47,015/-. In the facts and circumstances, we do not think there need be any further addition on lower sales reported, other than the difference arrived at from the value disclosed and the sale conceded - we affirm the addition to the turnover of ₹ 4,08,81,975/- with an equal addition as also the purchase return of ₹ 65,10,575/- and the under-valuation of sale coming to ₹ 28,47,015/-.
The Assessing Officer is directed to modify the assessment order - revision allowed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 497
Works Contract - validity of pre-assessment notice - disallowance of exemption claimed by the petitioner under Rule 10 - disallowance of minor portion of input tax credit - petitioner has made a specific case that the pre-assessment notice does not disclose grounds which has actually been now relied on in the impugned Ext.P-5 assessment order - HELD THAT:- Going by the data and facts and figures now projected in Ext.P-6 application for rectification would indicate that the petitioner has made out a very strong case that even parametres like land cost, corpus fund, electrical and water charges, etc. has already been reckoned by the 1st respondent, while determining the issue of value added tax, as per the impugned Ext.P-5 assessment order. Such an aspect would certainly termed as “wednesbury unreasonableness” in the decision making process, which led to the impugned Ext.P-5 assessment order. Since that is the specific case of the petitioner, it is only to be held that the plea for rectification made by the petitioner as per Ext.P-6 would require serious re-consideration at the hands of the 1st respondent. In that view of the matter, it is ordered that the impugned Ext.P-7 order rejecting the plea for rectification made out as per Ext.P-6 application will stand set aside.
This Court has not entered into the merits of the controversy in any manner and has only examined the decision making process on the part of the 1st respondent and has only noted the abovesaid contentions of the petitioner and the adjudication of all those issues on merits would be falling within the exclusive zone and domain of the 1st respondent Assessing Officer - Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (6) TMI 496
Refund of Excess payment made towards excess IPT - grant of interest on refund - Section 89(4) of the KVAT Act - HELD THAT:- It is ordered that the respondents will immediately take up the plea for refund made by the petitioner in Ext.P4 and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, will take considerable decision thereon, passing orders in the matter of grant of refund due to the petitioner, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment and depending on the orders so passed, the consequential steps for disbursing the new refund amounts should also be duly completed by the respondents or the competent official concerned within 4 weeks thereafter.
Grant of interest on the refund - HELD THAT:- The said claim for interest should also be duly considered and orders passed thereon by the respondent officer in the light of the mandatory provisions contained in Sec.89(4) of the KVAT Act. So that the due admissible interest amounts should also be duly disbursed to the petitioner along with the principal amount of the refund amounts.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (6) TMI 495
Extension of period of limitation - prescribed timelines for taking the 'Resolution Process' to its ogical conclusion in order to obviate and mitigate such hardships - HELD THAT:- A copy of this order be communicated to Registrar of National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi with a request to circulate the same to all Benches of NCLT across the country including the Principal Bench based at Delhi.
-
2020 (6) TMI 494
Approval of Resolution Plan - Appellant has challenged the decision for fresh valuation as made by the Adjudicating Authority on the ground that it is not permissible - HELD THAT:- We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order as no party has a right to say whether the Adjudicating Authority should go for further valuation before approval of the plan or not and it is open to the Adjudicating Authority to satisfy itself of the plan approved by the Committee of Creditors, to ascertain whether to approve the plan under Section 31 of the I&B Code or not.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2020 (6) TMI 493
CENVAT Credit - input/capital goods - tower and shelter - input service used for providing telecommunication services/passive infrastructure - HELD THAT:- The issue has been settled by this Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX-GURGAON VERSUS BHARTI INFRATEL LIMITED [2019 (2) TMI 1736 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] where it was held that assessee-appellant are entitled to avail cenvat credit on items, towers, shelter parts thereof being input used for providing output service.
Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (6) TMI 492
Dissolution of Applicant/Liquidator/Petitioner's Company - section 59(7) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - HELD THAT:- The affairs of the company have been completely wound up, and its assets have been completely liquidated.
The petitioner Liquidator has duly complied with the above stated provision and prescribed procedure, seeking for voluntary liquidation and dissolution of the petitioner company - By perusal of the material available on record in the present petition, it is evident that, the affairs of the company are completely closed down and the assets of the company have been completely liquidated. Thus, the petitioner company stands wound-up. Hence, the Petitioner Company deserves to be dissolved. Accordingly, this Adjudicating Authority hereby order that the company shall stand dissolved with effect from the date of this order.
Petition allowed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 491
Approval of Resolution Plan - liquidation of the Corporate Debtor - HELD THAT:- The Appellant cannot derive advantage of clause 15.3(b) of the Agreement as the provisions of the 'I&B Code' can prevail over such agreement. Finally, if no arrangement or Scheme framed under sections 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013 becomes possible or the 'Corporate Debtor' is not sold in its totality along/with the employees as ordered by this Appellate Tribunal in Y. Shivram Prasad [2019 (5) TMI 386 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI] and there is no option but to sell the assets of the 'Corporate Debtor' and to distribute the same amongst the Creditors in terms of Section 53 read with Section 52 of the 'I&B Code', at that stage, the Appellant may ask the Liquidator to return the assets i.e. Plant & Machinery, if it belongs to it as the third party.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 490
Classification of Works Contract - Applicability of SAC - whether classifiable under SAC 9973 - Leasing or rental services concerning machinery & equipment with or without operator or SAC 9954 - Composite supply of Work contract services - difference between operator and manpower as per GST Provisions - Special Purpose Vehicles - whether classified as machinery or not.
HELD THAT:- The applicant is providing a support to M/s. AMP in extraction of mineral and therefore it is a kind of supplying support Service. Whereas the supply cannot be categorized as that of goods due to the fact that minerals and mining site both are under the ownership of M/S AMP throughout agreement and post-agreement too. The applicant is just facilitating/ supporting M/s. AMP in extraction of the mineral. Thus the activity undertaken by the applicant is a ‘Service’ under CGST Act, 2017 - Whereas, the mineral extracted by the applicant from the mining site is no doubt a ‘goods’ which is extracted from the land but since the applicant do not have any ownership of the said mineral and land before the agreement, in duration of agreement and post agreement, therefore the activity is just a service to M/s. AMP.
The applicant is providing supporting service related to mining. The said service is classifiable under HSN 998622. The rate of GST on the said service is 18% as provided under the Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended).
The applicant is misconstruing the facts because nowhere in the agreement, M/s. AMP asks the applicant to lease manpower and vehicles. In fact, the supply of manpower and vehicles is for the own benefit of the applicant, these supplies are not made to M/s. AMP but to himself. Therefore, both these supplies cannot be categorized as independent supplies made to M/s. AMP.
Scope of Advance Ruling Authority - Difference between operator and manpower as per GST Provisions - Special Purpose Vehicles - whether classified as machinery or not - HELD THAT:- The issue raised by the applicant, are beyond the scope of this authority as it is not covered under section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017.
-
2020 (6) TMI 489
Supply for work contract or not - Government Entity of not - contract entered into with AWNL as per the work orders combine of supply, erection, testing and commissioning of materials/equipments for providing rural electricity infrastructure - taxable at the rate of 12% in terms of Sr. No. 3(vi)(a) of the Notification No. 11/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended w. e. f. 25.01.2018? - HELD THAT:- AWNL has been established under the Companies Act, 1956 by Govt, of Rajasthan with the principal objective of engaging in the business of distribution and supply of electricity in 11 districts of Rajasthan, namely Ajmer, Bhilwara, Nagaur, Sikar, Jhunjhunu, Udaipur, Banswara, Chittorgarh, Rajsamand, Dungarpur and Pratapgarh. Further, (a) they are established by the Government with 90 per cent, or more participation by way of equity or control (b) they carry out a function entrusted by the Government. Thus AWNL is a government entity.
Further, the applicant in the instant case is executing works Contract for supply of material/ equipment and erection, testing & commissioning of supplied material/equipment for ‘providing of Rural Electricity infrastructure for House hold electrification (6 35/0.24 KV single Phase Distribution Transformer sub-station 11 kv single phase line, LT single Phase line & BPL connections) in selected blocks under RGGVY scheme on turnkey basis’. In Dungarpur District to AVVNL, Ajmer which is a Government Entity.
M/s AWNL is involved in supply of electricity to the consumers and are collecting consideration in lieu of the said supply. The 'Electricity' as per GST is classified under the category of 'goods' and thus M/s AWNL is supplying goods to consumers and is receiving consideration against the same - Explanation Clause inserted vide Notification No. 17/2018-CT dated 26.07.2018 is not applicable in the instant case as activities are not undertaken by the Central government or State Government or any local authority as public authorities.
From definition of business, it is clear that any activity of trade, commerce or manufacture etc. or any other similar activity is included in the definition of business and it is immaterial whether it is done for a pecuniary benefit, and any activity done in connection with or incidental or ancillary to sue activity is also included in the scope of business - M/s AWNL is involved in the supply of goods as already explained and hence they are involved in the business of supplying goods. They also receive consideration for the supply of electricity. The predominant activity of M/s AWNL is to supply electricity and work undertaken by the applicant in the instant case is to help M/s AWNL predominantly in this work. Hence, the work undertaken by the applicant in the instant case is an original meant predominantly for use for commerce, industry, or any other business or profession.
Thus, all the five conditions prescribed implicitly by Entry No. 3(vi)(a) of the Notification No.11/ 2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 are satisfied by the applicant except one, viz. that the activity is meant predominantly to be used other than commerce, industry, or any other business or profession. Thus, work undertaken by the applicant as per Contract RGGVY/TN-13 for AWNL, Ajmer by way of supply of material/ equipment and erection, testing & commissioning of supplied material/equipment is though a Composite Supply of Works Contract but the same is not covered under the Entry' No. 3(vi)(a) of the Notification No. 11/ 2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended).
-
2020 (6) TMI 488
Classification of goods - Henna (Mehndi Cone) - Whether henna is classifiable under chapter 14 or 33? - HELD THAT:- It is well known fact that Henna/ Mehendi powder has a natural property of dye/ tanning and is generally used as hair dye. Therefore, the product is rightly classifiable under chapter heading 3305 as preparations for use on the hair and covered under amended Notification No. 41/2017 -Central Tax (Rate) dated 14 November, 2017 of the principal Notification No. 1/2017 -CT(Rate) dated 28.6.2017 and attracts GST @18%.
-
2020 (6) TMI 487
Classification of goods - rate of GST - Psyllium Husk Powder - taxable at 5% or 18%? - Notification No. 01/2017 -Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - HELD THAT:- Psyllium Husk Powder is covered under Serial No. 73 of Schedule-I of the said Notification attracting GST @ 5% - Psyllium is a plant whose part (seed/ husk) is crushed in powder form to prepare a pharmaceutical product. The entry 1211 of Notification explicitly matches the preparation/ process undertaken by the applicant.
Psyllium/lsabgol is a plant of which parts are used to prepare powder to be used as pharmaceutical product. As the Plants and parts of plants (including seeds and fruits), whether frozen or dried, cut or not cut, crushed or not crushed and powdered or not powdered falls under S. No. 73 of Schedule-I of Notification No. 1/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended) and attracts GST @ 5%. The classification and rate of GST of the Psyllium/lsabgol and its seed has also been clarified by CBIC clarification in December, 2017.
-
2020 (6) TMI 486
Composite supply of Works Contract - installation & commissioning of plant and machinery - supply by way of construction, erection, commissioning, or installation of original works - whether Such work should pertain to mechanised food grain handling system, machinery or equipment for units processing agricultural produce as food stuff excluding alcoholic beverages - applicability of notification no. 20/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 22.08.2017.
HELD THAT:- It is observed that Civil work comprises of civil construction of Dairy plant building, service block, processing, administrative block, workers amenities, godown, time keeping office, boundary wall, roads, water tank, E.T.P. (only civil work) water supply/sanitary & plumbing, hard park, internal/external electrification and all complete works as per the drawing and specification on turn-key basis. This civil work nowhere involves any supply of machinery or equipment. In absence of the same it will not fall under Entry No. (v)(f) of Sr. No. 3 of the table under Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) as amended by Notification No. 20/2017-Central Tax (Rate) - all the supplies of other parts are out of the purview of machinery or equipment for units under Entry No. (v)(f) of Sr. No. 3 of the table under Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) as amended by Notification No. 20/2017-Central Tax (Rate).
Supply of Pouch Filling Machine with online pouch coding machine of Make-Domino - HELD THAT:- To be eligible under Entry No. (v)(f) of Sr. No. 3 of the table under Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) as amended by Notification No. 20/2017-Central Tax (Rate), the said supply must be a ‘Composite supply of works contract as defined in clause (119) of section 2 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, supplied by way of construction, erection, commissioning, or installation of original works pertaining to,- (f) mechanised food grain handling system, machinery or equipment for units processing agricultural produce as food stuff excluding alcoholic beverages’. Therefore the said supply of Pouch Filling Machine has to pass following tests to be eligible for inclusion under Entry No. (v)(f) of Sr. No. 3 of the table under Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) as amended by Notification No. 20/2017-Central Tax (Rate).
The work order itself separately mentions under Part B- Electromechanical work, for goods supply portion under sub-part (a) Supply Part for ₹ 13.51 crore and for services supply portion under sub-part (b) Installation Part for ₹ 1.18 crore. Further, as per point (c) at page 1 of the above said work order, the applicant was required to submit to the Managing Director of the Bihar State Milk Co-operative Federation Limited, Patna, the detailed item-wise price break-up based on supply of individual equipment with GST rate applicable as per individual HSN code. Therefore the individual supply of the above said Pouch Filling Machine does not fall under ‘Composite supply’.
Also, supply of Pouch Filling Machine with online pouch coding machine of Make-Domino, is not an immovable property and hence supply of the same cannot be termed as supply of ‘works contract’.
The supply of Pouch Filling Machine with online pouch coding machine of Make-Domino, as well as other supplies of civil work and electro-mechanical work will NOT fall under Entry No. (v)(f) of Sr. No. 3 of the table under Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) as amended by Notification No. 20/2017-Central Tax (Rate).
-
2020 (6) TMI 485
Levy of GST - cross border purchase and sale of goods - goods procured from vendor located outside India in a context where the goods so purchased are not brought into India - goods sold to customer located outside India, where goods are shipped directly from the vendor's premises (located outside India) to the customer's premises.
Whether GST is payable on goods procured from vendor located outside India in a context where the goods so purchased are not brought into India? - HELD THAT:- The integrated tax on goods imported into India shall be levied and collected at the point when duties of customs are levied on the said goods under Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 i.e.-on the date determined as per provisions of Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962 - the issue has already been decided by IN RE : M/S SYNTHITE INDUSTRIES LTD., ERNAKULAM [2018 (4) TMI 583 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING - KERALA]. It was held that “the goods are liable to IGST when they are imported into India and the IGST is payable at the time of importation of goods into India; The applicant is neither liable to GST on the sale of goods procured from China and directly supplied to USA nor on the sale of goods stored in the warehouse in Netherlands, after being procured from China, to customers, in and around Netherlands as the goods are not imported into India at any point.
In the context of 'High Sea Sales', Circular No. 33/2017 Customs dated August 1, 2017 has been issued clarifying that sub section (12) of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 specifies that all duties, taxes, cesses etc shall be collected at the time of importation i.e. when the import declarations are filed before the customs authorities for the custom clearance purposes - The above circular is applicable in the present case - thus, where, Bill of Entry/import declarations are not being filed with respect to the goods so procured, GST would not be leviable.
Whether GST is payable on goods sold to customer located outside India, where goods are shipped directly from the vendor's premises (located outside India) to the customer's premises? - HELD THAT:- The thumb-rule for determining the taxability of any transaction is to ascertain whether the transaction tantamount to 'supply' in terms of the provisions of law - In the instant case, the applicant is selling goods for a consideration in the course or furtherance of business and as such the transaction tantamount to 'supply' in terms of the definition of 'supply'.
In the instant case the applicant has not stated the nature of goods and has not declared that such goods are exempted under any notification issued under the powers of Sec. 11 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the corresponding State Act or Section 6 of the IGST Act. Thus, the only possibility of goods not subject to levy of IGST would be the circumstances where the goods are exported - definition of Export of Goods indicates that the act of taking goods out of India to a place outside India qualifies as export. In the instant case, the goods have not crossed the Indian customs frontier and as such it is clear that the goods are not physically available in the Indian territory. When the goods are not available in the Indian territory, the question of taking goods out of India does not arise. Thus, the subject transaction does not qualify as export of goods.
The transaction is covered under the ambit of Inter-state supply and is neither exempted nor covered under export of services. Thus, the theory of elimination takes us to the conclusion that such supplies will be subject to levy of IGST.
-
2020 (6) TMI 484
Classification of goods - Fusible Interlining Fabrics of Cotton - whether classified under HSN Code 5903 or under chapter 52? - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the Note 2 to Chapter heading 5903, it is found that the said heading covers textile fabrics, impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics. Such products are classified here whatever the weight per square meter and whatever the nature of the plastic component (compact or cellular) provided that in the case of impregnation, coating or covered fabrics, impregnation, coating or covering can be seen with the naked eye. The textile fabrics in which impregnation, coating or covering cannot be seen with the naked eye usually fall in 50 to 55, 58 or 60.
In the present case, it is found that the applicant in their submission has admitted that this coating pattern can be seen with the naked eye and the same fact is also confirm by the concerned officer of SGST-Uttarakhand in his report dated 30,01.2020, therefore the product in question merit classification under Chapter 5903 of GST Tariff Act, 2017.
Thus, the Fusible Interlining Fabrics of Cotton (in short FIFC) is to be classified under HSN Code 5903 of GST Tariff Act, 2017.
-
2020 (6) TMI 483
Classification of goods - BOPP (Biaxially Oriented Polypropylene) Laminated PP Woven Sacks - Circular No. 80/54/2018-GST issued from F. No. 354/432/2018- TRU dated 31.12.2018 - HELD THAT:- The issue has also been decided by Authority for Advance Ruling under GST, Madhya Pradesh in the case of IN RE: M/S. NAGRANI WAREHOUSEING PRIVATE LIMITED [2019 (1) TMI 420 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MADHYA PRADESH] wherein it was ruled that the goods in question viz PP Woven Bags/Sacks shall be classifiable under Chapter 39 of the GST Tariff and not under Chapter 63.
Since the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh is crystal clear and squarely applicable in the present case, the goods in question are being held as classifiable under Chapter 39 of the GST Tariff and not 6305 of the GST Tariff.
-
2020 (6) TMI 482
Input Tax Credit - input services - Programme management consultancy - Marketing Consultancy - Land levelling and other related works - Roads - Water, electricity, & Drainage Infrastructure - Other related works for developing SIPC - HELD THAT:- The applicant is a port trust running a major port at Kandla. Under the directions of the ministry of shipping to utilize the land resources with the endeavour for developing port based smart city, they are developing one of India's first Smart Industrial Port City (SIPC) within Gandhidham-Kandla-Adipur Complex as part of the Sagarmala project. They will auction the land under the SIPC for 60 or more years, for a consideration, in the form of one time upfront premium, liable for GST, under the category of Real Estate Service (HSN 9972).
We observe that the applicant is engaged in development of port based smart city i.e. Smart Industrial Port City (SIPC) within Gandhidham-Kandla-Adipur Complex. The said project development is nothing but construction of an immovable property and any project development services or goods or works contract used for construction of an immovable property shall attract the provisions of clauses (c) and (d) under sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the CGST Act, which specifically deny input tax credit in respect of works contract services or goods and services used for construction of an immovable property - the said project development services of Programme management consultancy, Marketing Consultancy, Land levelling and other related works, Roads, Water, electricity, & Drainage Infrastructure and other related works for developing SIPC are not eligible for Input Tax Credit under the CGST Act, 2017.
The “Input Tax Credit” shall be NOT be available under the CGST Act, 2017, on the project development services like Programme management consultancy, Marketing Consultancy, Land levelling and other related works, Roads, Water, Electricity, & Drainage Infrastructure and other related works for development of SIPC i.e. construction of an immovable property.
-
2020 (6) TMI 481
Classification of goods - [J.J.'s] POPCORN (put up in unit container and bearing a registered brand name) - N/N. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - HELD THAT:- The product namely ‘[J.J.’s] POP CORN’, manufactured from raw corn/maize grains, which, by heating turn into puffed corns/popcorns and then to make it palatable other ingredients like salt and turmeric powder along with oil are added to it fits the description as ‘Prepared foods obtained by the roasting of cereal’. This description attracts classification under Chapter Sub-Heading 1904 10 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Since it is not Corn flakes (tariff item 1904 10 10), Paws, Mudi and the like (tariff item 1904 10 20) or Bulgur wheat (tariff item 1904 10 30), it will fall under the residual tariff item 1904 10 90 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. By virtue of this, the said product falls under entry at Sr. No. 15 of Schedule III of Notification No.1/2017 CENTRAL TAX (Rate) Dated 28-6-2017 and attracts 9% CGST and 9% SGST or 18% IGST.
-
2020 (6) TMI 480
Vires of Rule 117(1A) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - time limitation - permission to petitioner to electronically upload form TRAN-I or avail input tax credit in monthly return GSTR-3B - HELD THAT:- The Petitioner has challenged vires of Rule 117 (1A) of Rules, however we do not think it appropriate to declare it invalid as we are of the considered opinion that Petitioner is entitled to carry forward VAT Credit/ITC accrued under Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The Respondents have repeatedly extended date to file TRAN-I where there was technical glitch as per their understanding. Repeated extensions of last date to file TRAN-I in case of technical glitches as understood by Respondent vindicate claim of the Petitioner that denial of unutilized credit to those dealers who are unable to furnish evidence of attempt to upload TRAN-I would amount to violation of Article 14 as well Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
Reliance can be placed in the case of ADFERT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [2019 (11) TMI 282 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] where it was held that Respondents are directed to permit the Petitioners to file or revise where already filed incorrect TRAN-1 either electronically or manually statutory Form(s) TRAN-1 on or before 30th November 2019.
The Respondents are directed to permit Petitioner to upload TRAN-I on or before 30.06.2020 and in case Respondent fails to do so, the Petitioner would be at liberty to avail ITC in question in GSTR-3B of July 2020 - petition allowed.
............
|
9911796707
