HIGH COURT CASES
2019-TIOL-910-HC-AHM-GST
Neuvera Wellness Ventures Pvt Ltd Vs State Of Gujarat
GST - Petitioners challenge demand order and release of goods and truck detained and seized by respondents.
Held: In the impugned order there is not even a whisper as regards the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, nor have the same been dealt with in the body of the order - No reasons have been assigned by the second respondent for the purpose of holding the petitioner liable to payment of tax and penalty despite the fact that IGST had already been paid on such transaction and the goods were being moved from the customs warehouse to the petitioner's own godown and it being the case of the petitioners that there was no supply, and hence, the provisions of GST Act are not applicable - Impugned order is, therefore, totally bereft of any reasoning - Reasons are the heart and soul of an order passed by a judicial/quasi-judicial order, without which it is difficult to pronounce one way or other as regards the validity of such order - In the absence of any reasons to support the findings given by a judicial/quasi judicial authority, it is not possible to ascertain as to how the authority came to a particular conclusion - Under the circumstances, the impugned order stands vitiated as being an unreasoned order and as such cannot be sustained - matter is required to be restored to the file of the second respondent for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law by passing a speaking order after duly considering the submissions advanced by the petitioners - Goods being perishable, petitioners would be entitled to the release of the conveyance as well as the goods in question subject to compliance of clause (c) of section 129(1) of the CGST/GGST Acts - for the purpose of grant of immediate relief to the petitioners, the goods in question together with truck are ordered to be released, subject to the petitioners furnishing security by way of bond of an amount of rupees twelve lakhs to the respondent authorities - Petition partly allowed: HC [para 9 to 11]
- Petition partly allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-909-HC-AHM-GST
Octagon Communications Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner submits that there is no condition for making payment of tax as a pre-condition for filing return of Form GSTR-3B; that in the absence of any such provision, the online system of the respondents which does not allow filing of returns without payment of tax liability admitted as per such returns is contrary to legal provisions; that if the petitioner is not able to file return in Form GSTR-3B by 20th April, 2019 the petitioner would be deprived of input tax credit.
Held: Having regard to the urgency, the fact that there is no response from the respondents and by way of ad-interim relief, petitioner is permitted to file manual returns in Form GSTR-3B for the months November, 2017 onwards, which would be subject to final outcome of the petition - Matter posted to 13 June 2019: HC [para 3]
- Ad interim relief granted: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-908-HC-AHM-GST
Mahalaxmi Rexine And Metal Traders Vs State Tax Officer
GST - A perusal of the original file in relation to the proceeding which has culminated into an order of confiscation u/s 130 of the Act reveals that the noting sheet is totally blank - There is nothing on record to indicate relevant dates on which the proceedings took place - Considering the fact that this is a file maintained by a Government authority, it is difficult to understand as to how there are no notings with regard to the proceedings undertaken by the officer concerned - Matter to stand over to 24th April, 2019 to enable the respondents to file an affidavit-in-reply - respondent to inform High Court the practice of making notings of the proceedings conducted by the State Tax Officers: High Court [para 4, 5]
- Matter posted: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
AAAR CASES
2019-TIOL-39-AAAR-GST
Kolte Patil Developers Ltd
GST - Appellant, engaged in the construction of residential and commercial complex had approached the AAR seeking to know the procedure prescribed in law for cancellation of flats which are booked in the pre-GST regime; to know the GST liability if some amount is retained for cancellation, with the same being in the flat buyer's knowledge - AAR had held that the issue does not pertain to classification of goods or services, or applicability of some Notification, or determination of time & value of supply of goods & services or admissibility of ITC; that the tax refund sought herein is not regarding ITC of tax paid or deemed to have been paid; that since the issue raised is not one on which advance ruling can be sought under s.97(2) of the GST Act, the application was held as not maintainable - Appeal to AAAR.
Held: Neither AAR nor AAAR has jurisdiction to pass any ruling on such matters, therefore, no reason to differ with the ruling pronounced by the AAR - appeal dismissed: AAAR
- Appeal dismissed: AAAR
2019-TIOL-38-AAAR-GST
Sandvik Asia Pvt Ltd
GST - AAR had held that activities performed by appellant under the 'Comprehensive Maintenance Contract' are to be treated as a composite supply of services, supply of operation & maintenance services being the principal supply and other services as being ancillary to such principal supply and activities performed under 'Equipment Parts Supply and Services Agreement' are to be treated as mixed supply; that service code for Maintenance and repair services of commercial and industrial machinery is 998717 and prescribed rate of GST is 18% (CGST + SGST) or IGST @18%; that for supply of Mixed services, applicant is liable to pay the highest rate of tax as per s.8(b) of CGST Act, 2017 - Appeal to AAAR. Held: No reasons to interfere with the ruling dated 12.10.2018 passed by AAR - Appeal dismissed: AAAR
- Appeal dismissed: AAAR
2019-TIOL-37-AAAR-GST
Vservglobal Pvt Ltd
GST - Applicant provides back office support services to overseas companies-clients who are engaged in Trading of chemicals and other products in International Trade - Applicant comes into picture only after finalization of purchase/sale order by a client - AAR held that activities undertaken by the applicant are for and on behalf of the clients to facilitate supply of goods and services between their clients and their customers; that Applicant is clearly covered by the definition of "intermediary" and, therefore, provisions pertaining to 'place of supply' in case of intermediary services as provided in sub-section 8 of section 13 are relevant; that place of supply in case of services provided by the applicant being intermediary would be the location of the supplier of services i.e. the location of the applicant which is the state of Maharashtra; that to qualify as "export of services" all five ingredients of the definition should be satisifed simultaneously; that condition (iii) since not being satisfied, such services do not qualify as " export of services" as defined u/s 2(6) of the Act and thus not a "zero rated supply" as per section 16(1) of the IGST Act, 2017 - Appeal to AAAR. Held: By applying various indicative criteria to the spectrum of services being provided by the appellant, it is apparent that the services being offered in one package is nothing but the composite supply of which the ‘intermediary service' is the main supply - GST flyer issued by the CBIC on ‘Composite Supply and Mixed supply' relied upon - claim of appellant that principal supply being ‘back office support' and ‘accounting' and other services being ancillary is not tenable - services which the appellant are rendering are in relation to goods in question which belong to either their overseas client or the client's supplier, hence the claim that appellants are providing services to clients on own account is not tenable - AAR ruling upheld and appeal rejected: AAAR
- Appeal rejected: AAAR
2019-TIOL-36-AAAR-GST
Spaceage Syntex Pvt Ltd
GST - DFIA, also popularly known as duty paying scrips in the trade parlance is equivalent to the duty credit scrips, insofar as the tax treatment thereon is concerned and accordingly there will be Nil rate of GST on the sale or purchase of DFIA as provided in Sr. no. 122 of Notification 02/2017-CTR - Board Circular dated 06.06.2018 has while clarifying the issue of classification of various certificates and scrips and taxability thereon has used the word ‘duty paying scrips' and ‘duty credit scrips' interchangeably - AAAR is compelled to interpret that both the words ‘duty paying scrips' and ‘duty credit scrips' are one and the same - AAR ruling set aside and appeal allowed: AAAR
- Appeal allowed: AAAR
ARTICLES
GST - Post-Sale Discount - Let's avoid stirring Hornet's Nest!
GST-Summons, arrest, bail, prosecution-incongruities
