GST NEWS
GST - Gujarat HC orders issue of notice on several questions of law
GST HIGH COURT
2018-TIOL-175-HC-KERALA-GST
Daily Express Vs Assistant State Tax Officer
GST - Petitioner, a transporter, when transporting goods for a consignor, the Assistant State Tax Officer detained the goods as well as the conveyance on the ground that Part B of the accompanied e-way bill was not completed, hence the same is not valid for movement of goods as per section 138 of the Act - Petitioner submits that it receives paltry sums never exceeding 2,000/- rupees as transport charges and Section 129 in its entirety does not apply to the transporter; it may affect either the consignor or the consignee, at best; that the transaction is genuine and there is no possibility of, not even a doubt about, any tax evasion; that in view of s.122 if somebody transports any taxable goods without the cover of documents, at best he can be mulcted with Rs.10,000/- as fine, and nothing more.
Held: If the petitioner desires to have the interim release of the goods, there is no escape from Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Contention of petitioner that they are only a transporter and so the onerous Section 129 should not affect it is unacceptable since the Act does not provide for any such exemption - In fact, Section 129(1)(b) applies to all other persons interested in the goods than the consignor - If the petitioner is interested, then it answers that description - notices of detention do not suffer from any legal infirmity - If the petitioner wants the interim custody of the goods, it may comply with the statutory mandate under Section 129(1)(b) and get them released - Petition dismissed: High Court [para 12 to 14]
- Petition dismissed: KERALA HIGH COURT
2018-TIOL-174-HC-DEL-GST
Pyramid Infratech Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Anti-Profiteering - application for stay of the impugned order dated 18.09.2018 = 2018-TIOL-06-NAA-GST passed by the second respondent National Anti-Profiteering Authority concluding that the petitioner had profiteered by an amount of Rs.8.23 crores and directing the petitioner to reduce the price to be realized from buyers of flats commensurate with the benefit of ITC received by them.
Held: Petitioner has written a letter dated 05.10.2018 wherein it is recorded that they had offered to pay an amount of Rs.5,11,60,450/- to resolve the issue amicably with the customers - As an interim arrangement, petitioner is directed to deposit of Rs.5,11,60,450/- with the respondent authorities within 3 weeks - On the deposit being made, the same would be converted into an interest bearing FDR for a period of nine months and the FDR amount and the interest accrued thereon would abide by further orders of the Court - Reply to the application to be filed by the respondents within four weeks - Court has not expressed any firm and final view - Matter to be listed on 19.02.2019: High Court
- Matter listed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2018-TIOL-173-HC-P&H-GST
Modern Insecticides Ltd Vs State Of Punjab
GST - Issue raised is regarding release of detained goods during transportation after penalty has been levied and appeal against penalty order is pending.
Held: Though relevant provisions have been referred to, it is a sad state of affairs that no senior officers of the department concerned are present to assist the Court though the issue is important - Secretaries of the department concerned and the Excise and Taxation Commissioners of both States of Punjab and Haryana to appear in person in Court on the next date of hearing, 22.10.2018, to assist the court: High Court
- Matter adjourned: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
2018-TIOL-172-HC-P&H-GST
Akran Sharma Vs State Of Punjab
GST - Petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in case of FIR registered under sections 420 and 120B of the IPC - Prosecution avers that FIR was registered against the firms for causing loss of revenue to the government by committing fake sale/purchase to the tune of crores of rupees by getting registration number under the G.S.T. Act, 2017 on the basis of wrong/fake documents - It is revealed from verification of the documents that the said firm made purchase worth about Rs.80 crores from two firms from Delhi namely M/s Pingansik Enterprises and M/s Shree Radha Group of Industries and submitted I.T.C. Claim for Rs.14.30 crores - During the course of verification, the business person submitted just a few bills and verification of the said bills revealed that the vehicle used by the said firm for transportation of goods is Honda Activa scooter - In the FIR, so many other illegalities have also been pointed out - Petitioner submits that the main offence is under the G.S.T. Act and the FIR cannot be registered under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC - Counsel for revenue submitted that under the G.S.T. Act, only the matter regarding goods and service tax can be dealt with, but in the present case so many fake firms have been formed and there are forgery of documents etc. and, therefore, IPC provisions have been correctly invoked.
Held: Without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any merits on the case, since serious allegations have been levelled, the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation - no merit in petition, hence dismissed: High Court
- Petition dismissed: PUNAJB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
GST NAA CASE
2018-TIOL-15-NAA-GST
Director General Anti Profiteering Vs JP And Sons
GST - Anti-Profiteering - Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Applicant has purchased machinery from respondent which were imported from Germany - Applicant states that though the respondent had quoted price of Rs.59.06 lakhs with additional 2% CST and 2% freight as per his quotation dated 28.11.2016, he was asked to pay an amount of Rs.71,08,462/- vide tax invoice dated 06.09.2017 which included IGST @18% of Rs.10,84,342/- - Applicant alleges that after implementation of GST, a number of taxes viz. CST, Countervailing duty (CVD) and Special Additional Duty (SAD) had been subsumed in IGST but the respondent had charged 18% IGST on Rs.59,06,000/- which was the selling price as per the quotation dated 28.11.2016 and which included CVD and SAD etc, which had been merged in IGST and hence he had been denied the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by Respondent - Respondent intimated that he had imported and sold both the items after GST was implemented and he had not claimed any transitional benefit on them - DGAP has, after investigation, stated that had the import of the items had been made prior to implementation of GST when the respondent was required to pay CVD @12.% and Special Additional Duty (SAD) @4%, he would have got refund of the SAD upon the sale of these items but he could not have claimed credit of CVD which would have formed part of the cost of the imported items - inasmuch as based on the quotation the applicant would have been required to pay Rs.60,24,120/-, however, the imports were made after coming into force of GST when CVD and SAD were subsumed in the IGST and hence the entire amount of IGST @18% paid at the time of import was available as ITC to the respondent and, therefore, the respondent ought to have reduced the base price to the extent of CVD that was no longer to be paid as well as to the extent the IGST credit was available to him - DGAP has concluded that the invoice on which IGST @18% was charged proved that the base price of the above items had remained the same i.e Rs.60,24,120/- as per the quotation dated 28.11.2016 and the base price was not reduced to the extent of CVD that was not to be paid after implementation of GST - inasmuch as the total price to be charged to the appellant should have been Rs.66,30,377/- instead of Rs.71,08,462/- and hence the total amount of profiteering done by the respondent in the case of supplies made to the applicant was Rs.4,78,085/-.
Held: There is no merit in the arguments made by the respondent that the applicant had agreed that the machine may be supplied on the increased price since there is no evidence on record to prove the claim - so also, since the items were supplied when GST had come into force, there is no question of payment of CST by respondent - Respondent should have reduced the base price to the extent of CVD (@12.5%) since in the period post GST no CVD was charged and instead IGST was charged on the import of goods and which was available as ITC to respondent while supplying goods to the applicant - price offered prior to implementation of GST has to be reduced by the amount of CVD paid in order to neutralise the impact of ITC now available to the respondent - Respondent ought to have reduced the base price to the extent of CVD that was no longer required to be paid as well as to the extent of IGST whose credit was now available to him - respondent has admitted that he had not deposited the amount of CVD collected by him from the applicant on both the items to the Government account and, therefore, he was bound to reduce the price by the amount of CVD - Respondent has profiteered by the amount of Rs.4,78,085/- as computed by DGAP and, therefore, they have violated the provisions of section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and have rendered themselves liable to penal action in line with section 122 of the CGST Act, 2017 apart from his liability to refund the above profiteered amount along with applicable interest - in the interest of justice to the customers, a fresh investigation by the DGAP covering all products supplied by respondent within the confines of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 is merited to unearth and quantify the benefit that the respondent has failed to pass on to his customers - DGAP directed accordingly - Application succeeds: National Anti-Profiteering Authority.
- Application allowed: NAA
JEST GST by Vijay Kumar
State ACB Arrests Central GST Officer - Helpless CBI Looks On
GST FAQ's
FAQs on TCS under GST (Dated: November 30, 2018)
ARTICLES
GST - Agenda for the second year - Part XIV
