GST CASES

HIGH COURT CASES

2019-TIOL-498-HC-ALL-GST

Shanti Eat Udyog Vs STATE OF UP

SGST - First appeal u/s 107 of UPGST Act, 2017 is to be filed within a period of three months from the date of communication of order and the period for which delay may be condoned is thirty days from the expiry of the normal period of limitation - as the appeal has been filed beyond the condonable period by about nine days, the delay could not be condoned and the application for condonation was not maintainable - no error in the order of the appellate authority dismissing the appeal as time barred - petitioner, therefore, requests the High Court for exercising writ jurisdiction - as the matter requires consideration, counsel for Revenue is given four weeks time to file counter affidavit and the petitioner two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit - matter to be listed immediately thereafter - meanwhile, subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed amount of tax and furnishing security for the balance amount of disputed tax in the shape of other than cash and bank guarantee, within a period of one month, further recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall remain stayed: High Court [para 5 to 8, 11]

- Stay ordered: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-497-HC-KAR-GST

Shravan A Mehra Vs Superintendent Of Central Tax

GST - Allegation is that issuance of fake invoices without actual supply of goods has been done by petitioners with an intention to enable other registered taxpayers to fraudulently avail input tax credit and thereby they have caused huge loss to the economy of the country; that petitioners have committed an offence under Section 132 (1)(b) of G.S.T Act - petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to release them on bail for the offence punishable under Section 132 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Held: On close reading of Sections 132, 138 & 139 of the CGST Act, 2017, the maximum punishment provided under the Act is five years and fine and if that is taken into consideration, the magnitude of the alleged offence and it is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life - Even as per the said provision, the alleged offence is also compoundable with the Authority, who has initiated the said proceedings - The only consideration which the Court has to consider while releasing the petitioners on anticipatory bail is whether the petitioners can be secured for the purpose of investigation or for the purpose of trial – It is felt that by imposing stringent conditions if the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail, it would meet the ends of justice - petitions are allowed and petitioners Mr. Shravan.A.Mehra and Mr. Anil.K.Mehra are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of their apprehension or arrest subject to conditions viz. execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rupees five lakhs with two sureties for the like sum; shall not leave the country without prior permission of the jurisdictional Court; shall co-operate during the investigation; shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly and not indulge in similar type of criminal activity – Petitions allowed: High Court [para 8 to 10]

- Petitions allowed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-477-HC-ALL-GST

Sunaina Industries Vs State of UP

GST - Section 129 of the UP GST Act, 2017 - Improper invoice in respect of some bilties - goods seized and directed to be released on furnishing security and indemnity bond - Penalty order also passed - said order has nothing to do with order of release and can be challenged in the appropriate forum independently - Petition disposed of by directing petitioner to deposit tax and penalty and furnish security/indemnity bond pursuant to compliance of which, goods and vehicle to be released immediately: High Court

- Petition disposed of: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-476-HC-P&H-GST

Tanish Steels Vs State Of Punjab

GST - Since no appellate authority had been constituted, the petition was filed against the order passed by the State Tax officer imposing penalty equal to 200% of tax - Upon notice of motion having been issued, a reply was filed on behalf of the State with a copy of notification dated 15.02.2018 informing that Additional Commissioner (Appeals) has been appointed to perform the functions as an Appellate authority u/s 107 of the Punjab GST Act, 2017 and rule 109A of the PGST Rules, 2017 - In view of the same, writ petitions are disposed of by relegating the petitioners to take recourse to the remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority, in accordance with law - in view of the fact that the proceedings were pending before the High Court, it is clarified that in case the petitioners file appeals within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the present order, the same shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation by the Appellate Authority: High Court [para 5 to 8]

- Petitions disposed of: Punjab And Haryana High Court

2019-TIOL-460-HC-AHM-GST

HM Industrial Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner, CGST & CE

GST - Section 83 of the CGST Act - Commissioner is empowered to order provisional attachment for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government revenue - While a liability of Rs.14.62 crores had been estimated at the time when the order under section 83 of the CGST Act came to be passed, the present estimate is Rs.16.24 crores - the petitioner has already reversed input tax credit to the tune of Rs.13,28,00,000/- - High Court had by its earlier orders directed the respondent department to release the attachment on the petitioner's cash credit account - now the petitioner seeks a direction to respondents for release of the remaining bank accounts.

Held: Considering the amount paid by reversing input tax credit, the interest of the Revenue is sufficiently secured - Therefore, the provisional attachment of the above referred bank accounts of the petitioner is no longer justified - petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed - Respondent directed to forthwith release the provisional attachment over the petitioners bank accounts maintained with the Bank of Baroda, Kapadwanj, Axis Bank, Nadiad, HDFC Bank, Kapadwanj & that maintained with the Bank of Baroda: High Court [para 11, 12]

- Petition allowed : GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 

AAR CASES

2019-TIOL-57-AAR-GST

Sarj Educational Centre

GST - Applicant is the owner of a private boarding house and is providing services of lodging and food exclusively to the students of a secondary school run by a Charitable Society - they seek a ruling as to whether the service provided is a composite supply and whether such supply is eligible for exemption under Sl. No. 14 of 12/2017-CTR.

Held: Supply is a mixed supply within the meaning of s.2(74) of the GST Act and is taxable in accordance with s.8(b) of the Act - being a mixed supply, value of the entire combination of services offered is taxable at the highest applicable rate @18%: AAR

GST - Lodging facility is offered at a tariff below Rs.1000/- per day, hence exempted under sl.no.14 of 12/2017-CTR; food served is taxable @5% (sl.no. 7(i) of notification 11/2017-CTR); housekeeping services (SAC 9987) taxable @18% (sl.no. 25(ii) of 11/2017-CTR); laundry services (SAC 9997) taxable @18% (sl. no. 35 of 11/2017-CTR), therefore, in terms of s.8(b) of the Act, highest rate applicable is the tax payable in respect of the mixed services: AAR

- Application Dispose of: AAR

2019-TIOL-56-AAR-GST

GST- Bags/sacks (both with & without handle) made of Laminated PP Nonwoven Fabrics, of BOPP Pasted PP Nonwoven Fabrics is classifiable under SH 3923 2990 of the Customs Tariff: AAR

GST- Bags/sacks (both with & without handle) made of Woven Fabric pasted with Nonwoven fabric is to be classified as per General Rules of Interpretation of the Customs Tariff: AAR

- Application Dispose of: AAR

2019-TIOL-55-AAR-GST

GST - Even if provisioning of ambulance service to the employees is obligatory under the Factories Act, 1948, ITC is not admissible to ambulance purchased in November 2018 since section 17(5) of CGST Act blocks any such enjoyment: AAR

GST - Eligibility for claiming Input Tax Credit (IRC) u/s 16(1) of the Act is subject to the provisions of law at the time of occurrence of the taxable event irrespective of when the claim is made - second proviso to s.17(5)(b) of the Act, as it stands post amendment w.e.f 01.02.2019 is not applicable to a transaction made in November 2018: AAR

- Application Dispose of: AAR

2019-TIOL-54-AAR-GST

Indian Institute Of Science Education And Research

GST - A ruling on whether the decision of GST council granting exemption is binding on the department in the absence of corresponding notification by the Central/State government to give effect to such decision is not within the competence and mandate of AAR.

GST - Notification 51/1996-Cus read with notification 43/2017-Cus is not applicable to OEM suppliers of imported equipment: AAR

GST - Concessional rate of GST @5% under notification 45/2017-CTR and 47/2017-IGST(R) is applicable to supply of all specified goods mentioned in the notification, whether imported or indigenous: AAR

- Application Dispose of : AAR

2019-TIOL-53-AAR-GST

Prabhat Gudakhu Factory

GST - Gudakhu manufactured by the applicant is appropriately classifiable under residual Tariff Heading 2403 99 90 - As regards determination of liability to pay National Calamity Contingency Duty (NCCD), scope of ruling u/s 98 of the CGST Act, 2017 is limited to the extent prescribed u/s 97(2) - NCCD, being not a levy under the CGST Act, 2017 but under the CEA, 1944, it is not within the competence and mandate of the AAR to give a ruling thereon: AAR

- Application Dispose of: AAR

 

JEST GST by Vijay Kumar

Make Your Trip Within the framework of Law

 

ARTICLES

Reduction in GST rates for Realty Sector - missing the basic math

GST - Agenda for the second year- Part XXVI

Treading GST Path - 55 - GST & Job work under 32/97-Cus

GST woes of General Insurance sector

GST - Real Estate heading for a PAINFUL tax regime!