Coimbatore Road Contractors Welfare Association Vs CCT

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

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.  

2017-TIOL-38-HC-AHM-GST

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-37-HC-DEL-GST

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.

2017-TIOL-36-HC-MAD-GST

GST - Petitioner had filed a writ petition expressing difficulty in filing e-returns as there was a problem in the GSTN portal and that due to which they are unable to file returns for which reason they would be levied with a penalty u/s 47 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - on 21.11.2017, the petitioner informed the Bench that the difficulty in the portal has been rectified and that they are able to access the same - furthermore, it is also informed that the respondent Department has waived the penalty fee for the months of July, August and September 2017 and that the petitioner now can access the portal, file their returns for October 2017 and pay the tax.

Held : Taking note of the fact that the penalty fee has been waived for three months i.e. July, August and September 2017 and since the portal has been activated, no further orders are required except to record the stand taken by the parties before this Court - Writ Petition disposed: High Court [para 6, 7] - Petition disposed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2017-TIOL-35-HC-ALL-GST

GST - the petitioner, a trader based in Rajasthan, claimed to have sold some quantity of 'Sweet Supari' and 'Refined Palm Oil' to a buyer located in Assam - The petitioner claimed to have charged IGST @ 18% and 5% respectively on the two items - While passing through Uttar Pradesh, the goods were detained at Gorakhpur - The Respondent officials claimed that the goods were being transported without Transit Declaration Form (TDF) - The Respondents also claimed that the 'Refined Palm Oil' was infact 'Shudh Deshi Ghee' - SCN was issued proposing penalty u/s 129(3) of the UPGST Act, based on the above two issues - In the subsequent penalty order, the Respondent made an additional allegation that the petitioner was planning to evade payment of tax by selling the goods in UP.

Held - The only allegation made in the seizure order was that the TDF was absent and that the goods were incorrectly described - There was no allegation regarding the petitioner's intention to evade tax - Besides, such allegation was never made in the SCN - Further, the penalty order in passing alleged intent by petitioner to sell the goods in UP so as to evade payment of tax - However, the goods were never unloaded in UP - The petitioner was not asked to furnish any evidence in this regard - Hence, such allegation appeared to be an after-thought - Hence, in absence of any such allegations, the penalty is unsustainable - Moreover, the absence of TDF was a technical fault - The facts of the matter, and the fact that the goods were not unloaded in UP, were sufficient to prove that the goods were being sent to Assam from Rajasthan - Next, w.r.t. the mis-declaration of goods, the Respondents should have let them pass with an endorsement, having appreciated that the State of UP was being used as a transit state - Nonetheless, issue left open to be resolved in an appropriate case - Seizure & penalty orders unsustainable & set aside - Therefore, the goods & vehicle be released & penalty set aside: High Court (Para 2-11,28-33) - Writ Petition Allowed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2017-TIOL-34-HC-DEL-GST

GST - Third respondent to appropriately consider the petitioner's pending representations about the differential GST rates between its products and the fixed speed diesel engines - Matter listed on 12 February 2018: High Court [para 2, 3] - Matter posted: DELHI HIGH COURT

2017-TIOL-33-HC-KERALA-GST

GST - Alleged Misclassification and undervaluation of goods - Petitioner, a dealer, purchased the goods from the manufacturer at Delhi and had consigned the goods from Tamil Nadu and was transporting it to respondent at Pattambi, Kerala - goods detained by Assistant State Tax Officer, State GST Department, Thiruvananthapuram and by a detention notice petitioner directed to pay CGST and SGST each @14% totaling 28% as applicable to HSN code 3926 as against HSN code 4601 declared in invoice which attracts tax @18% and also make a security deposit equal of equal amount - Petitioner approaching High Court seeking release of goods.

2017-TIOL-32-HC-ALL-GST

Eten Craft Holding Pvt Ltd Vs State of Kerala

GST - Authority for Advance Ruling - Petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to notify an authority for Advance Ruling as contemplated under Section 96 of the Kerala State Goods and Service Tax Ordinance, 2017 - apprehension of the petitioner is that although the statutory provisions contemplate an authority for advance rulings within the State, the respondents have not constituted the authority, and hence, the petitioner is not able to approach an authority for advance rulings; that the portal of the taxing authority does not presently provide for a method of filing applications before the authority for advance ruling.

Aphro Ecommerce Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Senior Standing Counsel for Respondent UOI produced before the Court notification 37/2017 -CT(T) wherein it is notified that leasing of vehicles purchased and leased prior to 1st July, 2017 would attract GST at a rate equal to 65% of the applicable GST rate (including Compensation Cess) - in view thereof, the grievance of the petitioner no longer survives - Petition is disposed of: High Court [para 1, 2]- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

Kumar Traders And Company Vs State of Assam

GST - The grievance of the petitioners is the unauthorised inspection, search and seizure of their godown at Amingaon, by the authorities of the Bureau of Investigation for Economic Offences (BIEO) Officers on 27.7.2017, who have seized around 7290 bags of dried areca nuts, under the 2 seizure lists dated 27.7.2017 - the petitioners contend that this is an unnecessary intervention by an incompetent authority.

HELD: The stored areca nuts were neither stolen nor were kept in suspicious circumstances -at best, tax is payable for dealing in areca nuts but that would be in the domain of the Finance & Taxation Department -the submissions made by the Addl. Advocate General, Assam and the Asstt. Solicitor General of India reflect that the BIEO team may have acted beyond their jurisdiction -therefore, the Govt. Advocate has prayed for and is granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit - in the interim, to facilitate the petitioners to carry on their legitimate business and taking note of the fact that rate of tax is @2.5% for areca nuts, under the Assam GST Act, 2017 and they are to pay further 2.5% tax to the Central Govt. coffer, subject to the petitioners' furnishing BG for Rs.30 lakh towards the estimated tax, to the Commissioner of State Tax (respondent No.2), the seized goods should be released to the custody of the petitioners -the 7290 bags of areca nuts, after due verification should be released, in presence of the Tax Department Officials -however, the transportation and business of areca nuts will be subject to realization of due tax by the authorities and the Bank guarantee, ordered to be deposited, is only an estimation and is not on quantification of the payable tax -the Finance & Taxation Department is at liberty to estimate the precise payable tax and make the assessment -it is ordered accordingly : HIGH COURT [para 4, 6] - Interim Order passed: GAUHATI HIGH COURT

Archana Enterprises Vs UoI

GST - Counsel for Respondents UOI stated that the factual averments made in the writ petition were correct; that remedial and rectification action has to be taken by the respondents by allotting the User ID and password to the petitioner and which exercise would be undertaken and completed within three weeks - Matter to be re-listed on 21 November 2017: High Court [para 1, 2] - Matter relisted: DELHI HIGH COURT

2017-TIOL-27-HC-DEL-GST

GST - in the preceding hearing, the GST council was unrepresented - Moreover the status of the petitioner's application before GST council, was unknown - Secretary of the GST council was directed to be present in present date of hearing - Presently, the petitioner claimed to have received a communication from the GST Council, disposing off its representation - Said communication states that exemption cited by petitioner under Sr. No. 79 was inapplicable - The petitioner claimed exemption under Sr. No. 3 of Notfn. No. 12/2017 .

Held - no opinion on merits expressed on such claim, as it is not subject matter to be decided in the present petition - The petitioner claimed to be unaware of the requisite code number, for a person/service provider to seek the exemption under the Sr. No. 3 of the Notfn. No. 12/2017 - Petitioner directed to consult a specialist on the subject, or else approach the GST Council, to obtain the required information: High Court (Para 2-7) - Writ petition disposed off: DELHI HIGH COURT

2017-TIOL-26-HC-ALL-GST

GST - Petitioner is unable to complete the process of migration under the GST Act and CGST Rules since they are without a provisional ID and a Password corresponding to the correct PAN number of the petitioner company - contention of the petitioner is that in the absence of the migration, the petitioner cannot file returns or pay taxes and discharge its GST liability from July 2017 onwards or for that matter also cannot generate the E-way bill which are required for importing goods from outside the State of U.P. into the State; that though the petitioner is approaching the appropriate authorities by requesting and writing the letters for supplying of the password well within the due date for filing its return but no heed has been paid by the authority concerned; contention of the petitioner is that there is no fault on their part but on account of laches at the hands of the competent authority the petitioner company may suffer adverse financial consequences which may be arbitrary.

Held: High Court hereby directs the respondent authority concerned to immediately issue a password to the petitioner company for completing migration process on the GST Portal for uploading its returns and to deposit the due tax - It is further directed that the respondent authority concerned will allow the petitioner to complete migration to GST upon the receipt of such password as such issued to the petitioner company, in accordance with law - Petition allowed: High Court [para 16, 17] - Petition allowed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2017-TIOL-25-HC-MAD-GST

GST - Association is registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Act and was formed for the Welfare of the members of the Road Contractors, who have been carrying on works for the National Highways and Highways department and other Governmental organisation - contractors used to remit 2% tax on value for the works executed by them towards the Works Contract Tax under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 - however, after enactment of the CGST Act, 2017, they have faced certain problems because of which the petition has been filed - on 22.08.2017, Central government issued a notification imposing 6% tax on Works Contract and acordingly the contactor is required to pay 12% (including SGST) of tax towards works contract - Petitioners made representations stating that the contract works for which the agreements were executed prior to 01.07.2017 GST cannot be imposed and 2% VAT alone is applicable.

Held: Since the petitioner's representations are pending, it is appropriate for the respondent to respond to the same by giving them a reply - The appropriate person who would be in a position to give reply is the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes - there will be a direction to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to consider the representation given by the petitioner/ association and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks - petitioner/ association may be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing by the Commissioner: High Court [para 10, 12, 13] - Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2017-TIOL-24-HC-MAD-GST

GST - the petitioner is an association, formed for the welfare of its members, which are road contractors, carrying on works on National Highways State highways - Earlier the contractors remitted 2% tax on value for the works executed by them towards the Works Contract Tax under the TNVAT Act, 2006 - The petitioner claims that under the CGST Act, 2017, the Central Govt. notified that 6% of the tax was leviable towards works contract - The State Govt. is further empowered to levy towards contract tax in addition to the works contract tax imposed by the Central Govt. - Therefore, the contractor would be liable to pay 12% of tax towards the works contract - Therefore, the petitioner contended that for the works contract for which the agreements were executed prior to 01.07.2017, GST could not be imposed and 2% VAT alone was applicable - The petitioners also submitted that amount of GST paid over 2% was to remit the GST, since the petitioner's representations challenging such levy went unanswered.

Held - Commr. of Commercial Taxes directed to consider the representations made by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders within four weeks, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing: High Court (Para 2,3,4,9) - Case remanded: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2017-TIOL-23-HC-KERALA-GST

Ascics Trading Company Vs Assistant State Tax Officer

GST - a vehicle and some goods belonging to the petitioner were seized by the revenue authorities - The same were released upon production of an interim order - The issue in the present case pertains to the power of the State Govt. to detain goods for not carrying the prescribed documents under the IGST Act.

Held - Considering the provisions of Section 4 and Section 20 of the IGST Act and Section 6 of the CGST Act read with Rule 138 of the CGST Rules as amended by Notfn.No.27/2017-Central Tax, the Central Govt. had the power to prescribe the necessary documents to be carried while transportation of goods during inter-state trade - However, till date the Central Govt. had not notified the list of such documents - Moreover the State Govt. was not vested with the power to legislate upon the inter-state movement of gods in the course of trade - Hence the detention of the goods for not carrying the requisite documents was unsustainable in law: High Court (Para 2,3) - Writ Petition allowed: KERALA HIGH COURT

2017-TIOL-22-HC-DEL-GST

Jindal Dyechem Industries Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Press Release issued by the Ministry of Finance dated 6th October 2017 setting out the relief package announced for exporters by the Goods and Service Tax Council ("GST Council") at its 22nd Meeting held on 6th October 2017 is placed before the High Court by the Counsel for UOI; also informed that formal notification, in all probability, would be issued in immediate future - Petitioner states that notwithstanding the above relief measures announced by the GST Council on 6th October 2017, the situation on the ground remains the same; that Petitioner was not permitted to clear the goods viz. Gold bars without payment of IGST of Rs. 58,58,345/- and that the Petitioner"s protest to the authorities was to no avail.

Held: High Court directs that, in view of the aforementioned press release dated 6th October 2017, which prima facie makes no distinction as regards the Advance Authorisations (AA) issued prior to or after 1st July 2017, the Petitioner will not hereafter be required to pay IGST in respect of the imports of gold bars made by it in terms of the AAs issued to it - interim relief is granted subject to the Petitioner furnishing to the Respondent authorities a letter of undertaking that the clearance of the imported goods in terms of the AA will be subject to the final result of the present petition - Matter listed on 28 November 2017: High Court [para 5, 6] - Interim Relief granted: DELHI HIGH COURT

2017-TIOL-21-HC-DEL-GST

2017-TIOL-20-HC-AHM-GST

Chemico Synthetics Ltd Vs UoI

IGST - Prayer is to allow the Petitioner to make duty free imports against the Advance Authorization (AA) licenses issued to the Petitioner prior to 1st July, 2017 where the period of validity of the licenses remains unexpired - Petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the order dated 11th September, 2017 in Narendra Plastic Private Limited W.P.(C) 6534/2017 - 2017-TIOL-15-HC-DEL-GST where, in similar circumstances, the Court, as an interim measure, permitted the said Petitioner to import the raw material against the AAs issued to it subject to certain conditions.

Narendra Plastic Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

IGST - Grievance of the Petitioner is that it holds export orders placed on it prior to 1st July 2017 for the fulfilment of which it has to undertake imports of inputs - Petitioner sought to explain that, with the change brought about by the GST regime, the Petitioner would have no option but to pay IGST out of its sources causing a working capital blockage; that they would have to rely upon borrowings as it has already exhausted its overdraft limits with the banks; that the prospect of the IGST being ultimately refunded some time in future is of little consolation to the Petitioner who seeks liquidity to discharge the additional levy of IGST failing which its imports will get blocked; limited relief that the Petitioner is seeking is in relation to the applicability of the additional levy of IGST to imports made by the Petitioner to fulfil export orders that were placed with it prior to 1st July 2017 - Petitioner prayed that it should not be asked to pay the additional IGST on such imports as that would make the levy arbitrary and unreasonable - Delhi High Court had in its order dated 11 September 2017 viewed that the Petitioner had made out a prima facie case for grant of Prayer (b) in the writ petition, i.e. a direction to the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to continue making the imports under the Advance Authorization licenses issued prior to 1st July, 2017 in terms of their quantity and value, subject to terms - However, it is informed by the Petitioner that the Customs Authorities at Nhava Sheva, Ahmedabad and Hazira Port were not allowing the Petitioner to effect clearance of the raw material under the Advance Authorizations without payment of IGST and the Petitioner was thus compelled to pay the IGST.

M J S Enterprises Vs Controller of Stores And Purchase

JK Mittal And Company Vs UoI

GST - As regards legal services being taxable on reverse charge basis, ASG of India stated before the Delhi High Court that the Central Government will issue two fresh notifications by way of corrigendum to Notifications 8 & 13/2017-CT(Rate) and which would be fully consistent with the decision of the GST Council taken on 19 May 2017 and approved on 3 rd June 2017 and the same would be produced before the High Court on the next date of hearing - Issue concerning exemption of lawyers from registration under Section 23 (2) of the CGST Act and the position concerning those lawyers whose registration under the Finance Act 1994 has 'migrated' to the CGST Act in terms of Section 22(2) thereof and other issues raised in these petitions will be taken up for consideration on the next date - Further hearing listed on 26 September 2017: High Court [para 1, 3] - Matter listed: DELHI HIGH COURT

Narendra Plastic Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

IGST - Grievance of the Petitioner is that it holds export orders placed on it prior to 1st July 2017 for the fulfilment of which it has to undertake imports of inputs - Petitioner seeks to explain that, with the change brought about by the GST regime, the Petitioner would have no option but to pay IGST out of its sources causing a working capital blockage; that they would have to rely upon borrowings as it has already exhausted its overdraft limits with the banks; that the prospect of the IGST being ultimately refunded some time in future is of little consolation to the Petitioner who seeks liquidity to discharge the additional levy of IGST failing which its imports will get blocked; limited relief that the Petitioner is seeking is in relation to the applicability of the additional levy of IGST to imports made by the Petitioner to fulfil export orders that were placed with it prior to 1st July 2017 - Petitioner prays that it should not be asked to pay the additional IGST on such imports as that would make the levy arbitrary and unreasonable.

A & M Design & Print Production Vs UoI

2017-TIOL-13-HC-DEL-GST

Hind Energy And Coal Benefication (India) Ltd Vs UoI

2017-TIOL-12-HC-DEL-GST

Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner submitting that despite the order dated 25th August 2017 = 2017-TIOL-1678-HC-DEL-MISC of this Court, they have not been able to take credit of the Clean Energy cess already paid (in the sum of around Rs. 7.86 crores on the stocks of coal as on 30th June, 2017) since the forms developed by the Respondents have no column for utilising such credit for making payment of tax; that directions are accordingly sought in this application, to the Respondents to amend the Form Tran-I and simultaneously GSTR -3B and GSTR-1, GSTR-2 and GSTR-3 where utility of Cess is to be shown and/ or carried forward as cess or any other appropriate directions to the Respondents so that the Applicant/Petitioner could use the credit of cess already paid on the stock held on 30th June 2017 in terms of the order dated 25th August 2017 of this Court - Counsel for Respondent Revenue producing a copy of the letter dated 7th September 2017 addressed to him by the Under Secretary in the Central Board of excise and Customs (CBEC) wherein after referring to the earlier order dated 25 August 2017 it is mentioned that after receipt of application, collection of details and due verification department will evolve appropriate method so as to allow the petitioner to avail the credit in light of the order of the  High Court either on IT platform or manually - in this view of the matter, till such time an appropriate method/system is evolved by the Respondent which would facilitate utilization of the credit and provide for it in the returns filed electronically, the Respondents will not take any coercive steps against the Petitioner for the failure to file such electronic returns on time - Matter listed on 25 September 2017: High Court [para 7, 8] - Matter listed : DELHI HIGH COURT

2017-TIOL-11-HC-DEL-GST

CGST - Challenge to vires of Rule 44A of CGST Rules, 2017 - Prima facie case for interim relief - balance of convenience in favour of petitioner - no coercive action to be taken for reversal of credit: High Court [para 4] - Matter listed : MADRAS HIGH COURT

Aphro Ecommerce Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

Sanjeev Sharma Vs UoI

GST GSTN informs that portal for uploading application seeking advance ruling to be ready only in January 2018; alternatively, facility for filing manual applications to be available from 20 October 2017 with a facility to deposit prescribed fees of Rs.5000 through GST portal for all applicants HC questions authority for postponement when fact is that provisions of law are already in force Notice issued to GSTN returnable on 27 September 2017: HC [para 2, 3] - Notice issued: DELHI HIGH COURT

2017-TIOL-08-HC-RAJ-GST

Rajasthan Tax Consultants Association Vs UoI

CGST/SGST/IGST - GSTN system dysfunctional, needs to be corrected & updated to meet requirements - If system not responding, assessee or CA/Tax Practitioner to inform immediately by email to District Information Officer and their problems to be resolved expeditiously - no coercive action of penal interest, late fees, prosecution - composition scheme extended till 30 September - those who could not apply under composition scheme upto 16.8.2017, their applications will be accepted and if their case does not fall under composition log-in, they will send it by email and their applications will be accepted w.e.f. 1.7.2017 - Matter listed on 05.10.2017 : Rajasthan HC [para 3, 4, 4.1] - Matter listed: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

2017-TIOL-07-HC-DEL-GST

Kundan Care Products Ltd Vs UoI

CGST - CENVAT - Petitioners challenge Notification 22/2017-CGST dated 17th August 2017 inserting Rule 44 A in the CGST Rules, 2017 requiring reversal of 5/6th of the CENVAT Credit which had already accrued to the Petitioner on account of payment of additional duty of customs levied under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 paid at the time of importation of gold dore bar; that the said CVD was allowed to be carried forward in full as a transitional measure under Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner contends that the impugned notification issued in exercise of rule-making powers under Section 164 of the CGST Act, 2017 is grossly discriminatory and unreasonable and has imposed restrictions which are applicable only to imported gold dore bars; that the impugned Notification has singled out only imported gold dore bars resulting in imposition of a higher burden of tax on these goods as compared to other imported goods as well as compared to any similar domestic goods; that if the interim orders are not granted then the credit of CVD already availed and utilized for payment of tax on finished goods by the Petitioners would be electronically reversed and they would have to deposit cash. Held: Court is of the view that the Petitioners have made out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief in their favour; that the balance of convenience is in their favour for grant of interim relief - it is directed that till the next date of hearing, no coercive steps shall be taken by the Respondents to recover the credit already availed by the Petitioners - Matter to be listed on 25 September 2017: High Court [para 4, 6] - Ad interim relief granted: DELHI HIGH COURT

Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

2017-TIOL-05-HC-AHM-GST

Asahi Songwon Colors Ltd Vs UoI

CST - Foreign Trade Policy did not limit the benefit of CST reimbursement to a EOU on purchases made only from a DTA unit -purchases made by an EOU from another EOU would also qualify for CST reimbursement - Director General of Foreign Trade could not have framed or altered the Foreign Trade Policy - Circular of Government of India dated 11.4.2014 does not lay down the correct legal position and the same is quashed -Petition allowed: High Court

Central Sales Tax [CST] - Petitioner, a 100% EOU, situated in Kandla Special Economic Zone [KASEZ] is engaged in manufacturing various chemicals for export -the petitioner purchased raw materials manufactured in India -as per the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009 [Policy], during 2006-2008, the petitioner claimed CST reimbursement on such purchases made including from the manufacturing units situated in EOU -respondent authorities reimbursed the CST component of Rs.55.75 lakhs -however, on 26/30.9.2013, the Accounts Officer of KASEZ, informed that the audit conducted by CRA, Ahmedabad have pointed out that CST amount has been granted incorrectly - Audit officer of the view that purchases made by an EOU from another EOU would not qualify for CST reimbursement -as per the Hand Book of Procedures, such reimbursement would be available only on purchases made from Domestic Tariff Area [DTA] for production of goods and services as per EOU scheme - SCN issued to petitioner - relying on the Appendix 14-I-I of Hand Book of Procedures of the Policy, and the circular issued by the Government of India dated 11.4.2014, the Development Commissioner passed O-i-O and demanded the CST reimbursement of Rs.55.75 lakhs and also imposed penalty of Rs.25 lakhs for delayed returning of the said amount - petitioner has challenged the said O-i-O along with the Government Circular dated 11.4.2014 and the procedure for claiming CST reimbursement.

HELD -A minute scrutiny of the provisions contained in para. 6.11 of the Policy would reveal that the language used in clauses (a), (b) and (c), in general, was not made limited to the supplies from a DTA unit - clauses(a) and (b) both confined their application to the supplies made by the DTA unit -clause(c) itself contained two situations -in sub-clause(i) what was envisaged was reimbursement of CST on goods manufactured in India -sub-clause (ii) envisaged exemption from payment of CST on goods purchased from DTA on goods manufactured in India -thus the Policy wherever intended to limit the benefit of an EOU on procurement made from a DTA unit, it was so specifically provided -when, therefore, sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of para 6.11 of the Policy did not make any such reference to the procurement from a DTA unit but used the expression "goods manufactured in India", it must be understood that this clause would govern the goods purchased by EOU unit from any unit as long as the condition of goods being manufactured in India is satisfied - in plain terms, therefore, the Policy did not limit the benefit of CST reimbursement to a EOU on purchases made only from a DTA unit - in exercise of powers under section 6 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, the Director General of Foreign Trade could not have framed or altered the Foreign Trade Policy-in the case of Hospira Health Care India Pvt. Ltd. [ 2016-TIOL-3237-HC-MAD-CUS ], a similar issue had come up for consideration, and it was held that the demand for refund of the reimbursement benefits were in conflict with para 6.11 of the Foreign Trade Policy - the Hand Book of Procedures and in particular Appendix-14-I-I contained therein nowhere aims to lay down any policy but prescribes the procedure to be followed for reimbursement of CST - such procedure could not have restricted the benefit by excluding the purchases from certain source which exclusion did not flow from the Foreign Trade policy itself - the claim pertained to period between 2006 and 2008 -they were made at the relevant time and granted by the respondents without any dispute -such reimbursements are now sought to be recovered for which SCN came to be issued on 10.7.2015 -it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was responsible for any mis-representation or mis-statement of facts which resulted into such erroneous reimbursement being granted and which came to the notice later on -that being the position, it was not possible for the respondents to make recoveries after unduly long period of time which in the present case happens to be more than seven years, that too, without any explanation for such delayed action - the impugned O-i-O dated 22.8.2016 is set aside - the circular of Government of India dated 11.4.2014 does not lay down the correct legal position and the same is also quashed -in the result, the petition is allowed: HIGH COURT [para 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25] - Petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

GST - Petitioner firm is engaged in construction & development of multiplex theatres, in Saharanpur district - A scheme under the U.P. Entertainments & Betting Tax Act, 1979 permitted multiplex owners to collect & retain certain percentage of Entertainment tax upto 31.03.2020 - The petitioner firm was permitted by the Entertainment Tax Officer /Collector to retain such amount of tax so as to enable it to recover cost of construction of multiplex - With the coming of CGST & UP GST Act, 2017, the erstwhile Act was repealed vide s.174 of the Act, 2017 but with the saving clause that it will not effect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the repealed Act provided the tax exemption granted under the repealed Act by any notification has not been rescinded or revoked by a fresh notification on or after the enforcement of the G.S.T - Petitioner claimed right to collect entertainment tax as in the past upto 31st March, 2020 as no such Notfn. repealing or revoking the tax exemption was issued.

Held - Counsels for the respondents directed to file counter affidavits informing if the scheme granting tax benefit to the petitioner was still in effect or stood revoked, either automatically or by any fresh notification - Petition to be listed for admission/final disposal on 18.09.2017: High Court - Petition listed on 18.09.2017: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2017-TIOL-03-HC-DEL-GST

GST - All legal services provided by Advocates, law firms of Advocates, or LLPs of advocates will be continued to be governed by the reverse charge mechanism - No coercive action: HC - Matter listed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2017-TIOL-02-HC-DEL-GST

GST - No coercive action be taken against any lawyer or law firms for non-compliance with any legal requirement under the CGST/IGST/DGST Acttill a clarification is issued: High Court (Para 14) - Matter listed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2017-TIOL-01-HC-MUM-GST

Dr Kanagasabapathy Sundaram Pillai Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner through a PIL challenged the implementation of the new Goods & Service Tax regime on grounds of lack of preparedness of several states and the public at large - Petitioner expressed concern w.r.t. the smooth implementation of GST due to legal hurdles and other complications and sought a stay on the implementation of GST till such flaws were ironed out. Held: Since the levy and collection of taxes on goods and services has sanction of law and also considering that over 65 Lakhs tax-payers had migrated to GST network & obtained registrations, and the rates & taxes were notified and rules framed and notified and wide publicity is given in public domain and also that the entire machinery was geared up to ensure the effective implementation of GST, High Court not inclined to entertain PIL, hence same is dismissed: High Court (Para 5, 6) - PIL dismissed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT