2017-TIOL-GST-138 Dated: Tuesday, December 12, 2017

CASE LAWS

2017-TIOL-40-HC-AHM-GST

Hitesh Engineering Vs UoI

GST - Petitioners have challenged the condition contained in clause (iv) of sub-section (3) of section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017 which mandates that the registered person can take in his electronic credit ledger, credit of eligible duties on the strength of invoices or other prescribed documents which were issued not earlier than twelve months immediately preceding the appointed day – it is the case of the petitioner that they have sizable stock of goods purchased prior to the said period and on which, by virtue of the said condition, no CENVAT credit would be available.

Held: Issue notice returnable on 25.01.2018 - notice to be issued to Attorney General of India in view of the fact that validity of Union legislation is questioned: High Court [para 2, 3] - Notice issued : GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2017-TIOL-39-HC-AHM-GST

Adi Tradelink Vs UoI

GST – Petitioner, an importer of coal has challenged the constitutional validity of the GST (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 and relevant notifications issued on the ground the same are ultra vires Article 279A of the Constitution – inasmuch as it is their grievance that on the coal imported by it prior to the introduction of Goods and Services tax regime, the petitioner had already paid clean energy cess at the prescribed rate and on the stock which the petitioner had not cleared, no credit would be allowed on such cess and the petitioner would be asked to pay fresh cess under GST (Compensation to States) Act, 2017.

Held: Issue notice returnable on 18.01.2018 – notice to be issued to Attorney General of India in view of the fact that validity of Union legislation is questioned: High Court [para 2, 3] - Notice issued : GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2017-TIOL-38-HC-AHM-GST

Adi Tradelink Vs UoI

2017-TIOL-37-HC-DEL-GST

D Pauls Travel and Tours Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner submits that it is in the business of booking tours and hotel packages for customers and charge IGST from customers for bookings in hotels located outside Delhi - However, they are unable to avail input tax credit on the SGST charged by the hotels located outside Delhi since they are not registered in the State in question - Petitioner submits that as per the stand of the respondents, the petitioner and other assessees would have to be registered in all States and Union Territories to avail input credit of SGST which, according to them, is contrary to the purpose and objective of Goods and Services Tax; that effective rates of tax would go up from 18 % to 27% for hotel rooms in the Rs.2,500/- to Rs.7,500/- per night slab and from 28% to 42% for hotel rooms Rs.7,500/- and above per night; that different provisions are applicable in case of online bookings through web travel portals and they are able to avail the credit.

Held: Respondents to examine the assertions and so called anomalies and inform the Court on the treatment accorded on sale of manufactured goods and other services which are provided by an assessee across the country - Respondents would also examine and consider whether the matter should be placed before the GST Council - Matter to be re-listed on 8 th February, 2018: High Court - Matter to be re-listed : DELHI HIGH COURT

KARNATAKA JURISDICTION

Karnataka Taxpayers Division - Centre

Karnataka Taxpayers Division - State

Order 1

Karnataka Taxpayers Division - Order

Trade Notice 20/2017

Karnataka Taxpayers Division - Trade Notice

ANTI PROFITEERING

APAF-1

Anti-Profiteering Application Form

SGST NOTIFICATION

PUNAJB SGST RULES NOTIFICATION