E-Way Bill FAQs

FAQs on E-Way Bill System (Dated: 01.10.2018 )

 

GST HIGH CASE

2018-TIOL-133-HC-AHM-GST + Case Story

Willowood Chemicals Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Merely because the rule in question prescribes a time frame for making a declaration, such provision cannot necessarily be held to be directory in nature - Time-limit provisions contained in sub-rule (1) of rule 117 of the CGST Rules is not ultra vires the Act or the powers of the rule making authority - time limit provisions cannot be seen as merely technical in nature - When the entire tax structure of the country is being shifted from earlier framework to a new one, there has to be a degree of finality on claims, credits, transfers of such credits and all issues related thereto - such prescription of time limit cannot be stated to be either unreasonable or arbitrary - Interpreting such powers as merely directory would give rise to unending claims of transfer of credit of tax on inputs and such other claims from old to the new regime - Doing away with the time limit for making declarations would give rise to multiple large-scale claims trickling in for years together, after the new tax structure is put in place and would, besides making the task of matching of the credits impractical, if not impossible, also impact the revenue collection estimates - annihiliating time limit contained in rule 117 would have serious repercussions - Removing such time limit would have a potential to lead to utter economic chaos - Petition dismissed: High Court.

- Petition dismissed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 

SGST (WEST BENGAL)

RULES NOTIFICATION

52/2018

RATE NOTIFICATION

23/2018

 

ARTICLES

GST Incentive Schemes by States - A Dynamic Calculus of Value-Additions

GST - Agenda for the second year - Part V

Difference Between Calamity and Disaster

Critical compliance issues need GST Council's attention