TOP NEWS

GST - RFD-01A refund of Rs 17K Cr paid till June 16: Chaudhary

e-Way Bill - Officers appointed to deal with grievances

e-Way Bill - Transporters call for chakkajam from Friday

IGST refund - CBIC launches another fortnightly drive till July 30

 

GST CASE LAWS (HIGH COURT)

2018-TIOL-70-HC-SIKKIM-GST

Summit Online Trade Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Central Goods and Services Act, (CGST Act) 2017 / Integrated Goods and Services Act, (IGST Act) 2017 / Goa Goods and Services Act, 2017 (GGST Act, 2017) - Three writ petitions seeking to challenge, inter alia, impugned notifications of various States including State of Goa to the extent it levies differential rate of tax on the supply of the lottery tickets are pending before this Court for adjudication – present applications filed by the State of Goa seeking deletion of the State of Goa as a party Respondent in the said three writ petitions - it is the applicant's case that as far as challenge to the notification issued by the State of Goa is concerned and charging of the Tax thereunder, the cause of action, if any, has arisen in Goa and thus, the appropriate Court where the notification and the consequential actions if at all can be challenged is the High Court of Bombay at Goa.

HELD: It is seen that the petitioners in the said three writ petitions are aggrieved by not only impugned notification issued by State of Goa under the GGST Act, 2017 but also by the act of the Centre of issuing the impugned notifications under the CGST Act, 2017 as well as the IGST Act, 2017 which seeks to levy Goods and Services Tax on lotteries organized, promoted and conducted by the State of Sikkim - perusal of the prayers, as prayed for, in the said three writ petitions also makes it evident that at least a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court -a part of the cause of action for the present writ petition having arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court coupled with the fact that the said writ petitions  WP(C) No. 36/2017  and  WP(C) No.38/2017  having been filed prior in time before this Court to the writ petition filed by  Serenity Trades Private Limited in WP(C) No.759/2017  in the High Court of Bombay at Goa and  WP(C) No.59/2017   is being heard together with the said two writ petitions, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid applications filed in the aforesaid writ petitions for deletion of State of Goa from the array of Respondents in the said writ petitions are liable to be dismissed - all the I.A (s) stands dismissed -ordered accordingly : HIGH COURT [para 19, 20, 24, 25]

2018-TIOL-69-HC-MAD-GST

V Ramakrishnan Vs UoI

GST - the petitioner is a registered contractor with the Railways - He sought that directions be issued to the relevant railway authorities to implement certain instructions issued by the Railway Board, in respect of works contract services provided on work orders entered into prior to introduction of GST and works completed after implementation of GST.

Held - As the petitioner did not first approach the relevant authorities & file representations before them in this regard, the petitioner cannot jump such process and directly approach the writ court - Also the issue pointed out is a larger issue and which is not pertaining to a single contractor - Also, the Pr. Commr. of GST & Central Excise claimed to not be a proper or necesary party in the present case - However, such claim is untenable as the Railway administration may need to consult the Commr. so as to understand the impact of GST on individual contracts - Hence petitioner is directed to approach the relevant railway authority & file representation within two weeks - Such authority is also directed to dispose of the representation on merits within two weeks: HC (Para 2,4-7)

2018-TIOL-68-HC-MP-GST

Gati Kintetsu Express Pvt Ltd Vs CCT

GST - the petitioner company is engaged in multi model transportation of shipments, supply chain management & other allied services - During the period of dispute, a vehicle belonging to the petitioner was checked u/s 68 of the MP GST Act, which provides for inspection of goods in movement - On enquiry, the vehicle driver produced the bill & challan, but regarding the e-way bill it was found that the part-B of the e-way bill was not updated - The same is a requirement u/r 138(5) of the MP GST Rules, which mandates Part A & Part B to be mentioned in an e-way bill covering goods whose value exceeds Rs 50000/- - Part B of the e-way bill also contains details of conveyance - Hence the Department alleged contravention of Rule 138 & Section 68 of the Act - Proceedings u/s 129 were initiated, leading to penalty being imposed u/s 122 for transporting taxable goods without cover of documents - In defence, the petitioner claimed that it was unable to update part B of the e-way bill due to technical errors.

Held - the distance between the source & destination of the goods was more than 1200-1300 kilometres - It was mandatory for the petitioner to file Part B of the e-way bill, specifying all details such as vehicle number before the goods are loaded in the vehicle - Hence the petitioner admittedly violated provisions and Rules of the MP GST Act - Hence the penalty is correctly imposed and the same must be paid by the petitioner: HC (Para 2-10,23)

2018-TIOL-67-HC-KERALA-GST

Assistant State Tax Officer Vs Indus Towers Ltd

GST - In interpreting a provision, High Court would and should be averse to speculation on facts, nonetheless, considering the ramifications of its decision, in a  fledgeling  statute, it is constrained to do so - When a delivery challan is issued under Rule 55, it is a mandate under sub-rule (3) of Rule 55 that there should be a declaration as specified in Rule 138 of Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - fact that there was no such declaration uploaded in the site as an intimation to the Department of the transport of such goods raises a reasonable presumption of attempt to evade tax - If the conditions under the Act and Rules are not complied with, definitely Section 129 operates and confiscation would be attracted - respondents are entitled to an adjudication, but they would have to prove that, in fact, there was a declaration made under Rule 138 before the transport commenced - If they do prove that aspect, they would be absolved of the liability; otherwise, they would definitely be required to satisfy the tax and penalty as available under Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017/Kerala SGST Act, 2017 -  judgment of the Single Judge vacated and the Writ appeals by the department are allowed - vehicle and the goods having been already released unconditionally, further notice shall be issued and the adjudication under sub-section (3) completed; upon which if penalty is imposed, definitely the respondents would have to satisfy the same – Writ Appeals allowed: High Court [para 20, 21, 22, 25]

2018-TIOL-66-HC-KERALA-GST

Shinrai Automobiles Pvt Ltd Vs GST Council

GST - the petitioner is a dealer & attempted to upload Form GST TRAN-1 within the stipulted time frame - However, the petitioner failed to do so on account of a system error - Consequently, the petitioner is unable to avail input tax credit - Hence the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions.

Held - the Govt issued Circular No.39/13/2018-GST, dated April 03, 2018 appointing Nodal officers to redress IT-related grievances faced - Hence the petitioner is directed to approach the Nodal officer concerned & file representation in this regard - The Nodal officer is directed to take appropriate steps in this regard - Also should the petitioner be found unable to upload the Form GST TRAN - 1 for no fault of its own, then the petitioner be enabled to avail input tax credit: HC (Para 1,3,5,6)

2018-TIOL-65-HC-MP-GST

Vijay Kumar Nagpal Vs UoI

GST - the petitioner claims that pursuant to introduction of GST, the State Government of Madhya Pradesh issued a Notfn dated June 24, 2017 under which all notifications regarding setting up & erection of checkposts were rescinded - The Central Govt also stated that 22 states had abolished check posts & one such state was MP - Hence in light of such Notfn the petitioner claimed that all check posts were to be removed & that no vehicle could be restricted or obstructed seeking payment of tax - Hence the present writ.

Held - Notice issued to respondents - Four weeks' time granted to file replies - In the interim period, appropriate directions be issued to remove check posts which should have been abolished under the Notfn dated June 24, 2017 - Compliance with the same be reported within two weeks: HC

 

E-Way Bill

Grievance Redressal Officers CBIC and State UT Governments for e-way bill system under rule 138D of Central State GST Rules 2017

 

JEST GST (By Vijay Kumar)

Babus allowed reimbursement of GST

 

ARTICLES

GST Law Amendments - Will Council make it more taxpayer-friendly?

Is disallowing supplementary claim under MEIS & SEIS Scheme by DGFT valid?

Second Year of GST - A year to amend mistakes

Babus allowed reimbursement of GST