FLASH NEWS
GST Council decides to extend GSTR-1 & GSTR-3B filing for 3 more months as imbroglio over new Design of GSR continues to be knotty for GoM
TOP NEWS
GST Council takes note of gaps in IGST payment & ITC
RCM, TDS & TCS further deferred till June
Inter-State E-way bill to be in force from April 1
GST exemption for exporters extended by six months
PRESS RELEASE
40
Extension of tax exemptions for exporters for six months
39
Press Release regarding Policy Changes
38
Press Release regarding E-way Bill
37
Press Release regarding Data Analytics
ARTICLES
GST - Consumption States need to work hard for more revenue
EOUs - to Bond, or de-Bond!
CASE LAWS
2018-TIOL-16-HC-ALL-GST
Seth Prasad Agro Pvt Ltd Vs State Of UP
CGST - Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of seizure dated 11.01.2018 alleged to have been passed u/s 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of agricultural implement “Tasla” and was transporting the same from from one state to another when the consignment was intercepted, detained and seized at Varanasi – petitioner submits that since the transaction was an inter-state one, the same is covered by the IGST Act, 2017 and is not liable to be seized under the UP GST Act. Held: Transaction in question is treated to be covered by the IGST Act and the provisions of U.P. G.S.T. Act would not apply, however, a similar provision as Section 129 of the U.P. G.S.T. Act exists in the Central G.S.T. Act as well - Section 20 of the IGST Act provides that the provisions of Central G.S.T. Act would apply in respect of matters of inspection, search, seizure and arrest to the matters covered by the IGST Act - In other words, in the matter of seizure under the provisions of IGST Act the provisions of Central G.S.T. Act such as Section 129 would apply mutatis mutandis - the impugned order of seizure cannot be held to be bad in law - impugned order is to be treated to have been passed under IGST Act read with Section 129 of the Central G.S.T. Act rather than the one passed under U.P.G.S.T. Act – Petitioner further submits that consignment of goods has been seized by treating them to be 'Ghamella' rather than 'Tasla'; that 'Tasla' was exempted from G.S.T. vide notification dated 29.06.2017 and 'Ghamella' has been included in the taxable goods vide notification dated 25.01.2018 and thus, on the relevant date, 'Ghamella' was also an exempted item and the order of seizure is patently illegal – In this view of the matter, counsel for Revenue is directed to seek instructions and file counter affidavit within a month - In the meantime, the goods and the vehicle seized are directed to be released on furnishing indemnity bond as well as security other than cash and bank guarantee of the taxable amount of the seized goods – Matter to be listed for admission / final disposal immediately after expiry of the above period of one month and filing of rejoinder affidvait: High Court - Interim relief granted: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
2018-TIOL-15-HC-ALL-GST
Proactive Plast Pvt Ltd Vs State Of UP
GST - Petitioner is aggrieved by the seizure of his goods vide impugned order dated 20.01.2018 passed under Section 129(1) of the UP GST Act, 2017 - Petitioner submits that admittedly the seized goods were in transit from outside the State & therefore, Rule 138 of the Rules framed under the U.P.G.S.T. by a notification dated 21.07.2017 making E-Way bill mandatory would apply only in respect of goods in transit within the State of U.P. and not for goods brought from outside the State. Held: Even if the seizure is treated to be under Section 129(1) of the Central G.S.T., as there was no provision of E-Way bill on the relevant date under the Central G.S.T and, therefore, prima facie the seizure appears to be illegal - Counsel for Revenue may seek instructions and file counter affidavit within two weeks and matter be listed for admission/final disposal thereafter - since the goods seized are said to be perishable nature, the same are directed to be released along with vehicle subject to the petitioner furnishing indemnity bond and security (other than cash and bank guarantee) in respect of the proposed tax and penalty on the value of the goods shown in the documents accompanying the same: High Court - Interim relief granted: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
