GST CASES
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2019-TIOL-339-SC-GST
C Pradeep Vs CGST & CE
GST - The petitioner filed the present petition, claiming that penal provisions of Section 132 of the CGST Act could not have been invoked in his case, where assessment proceedings for the relevant period had not been completed - The petitioner further expressed willingness to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed duty demand, so as to exercise option of filing appeal after the assessment order is passed.
Held - Notice be issued, conditional upon the petitioner furnishing the requisite pre-deposit amount within ten days' time - Moreover, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner for period of one week - Such protection may continue upon receipt of the pre-deposit amount - Matter be listed on September 12, 2019: SC
- Case deferred : SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HIGH COURT CASES
2019-TIOL-1783-HC-DEL-GST
Bahl Builders Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - The present petition was filed on account of the petitioner's inability to rectify the TRAN-1 form.
Held - In view of the decisions in Bhargava Motors v. UOI, M/s. Blue Bird Pure Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI and Vertiv Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI., the petitioner deserves another chance to file the rectified Form TRAN-1 - Hence the authorities concerned are directed to open the portal for the petitioner or else permit manual filing of revised form, on or before Aug 31, 2019: HC
- Writ petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-1782-HC-DEL-GST
Arvind Beauty Brands Retail Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - During the relevant period, credit claimed in Form TRAN-2 was rejected on grounds that the requisite details had not been filed in Form TRAN-1 - Hence the present writ.
Held - The petitioner undertakes to re-file Form TRAN-1 so that the TRAN-2 form can be filed thereafter and credit claim be processed - Hence the authorities concerned are directed to re-open the portal so as to enable the petitioner to re-file Form TRAN-1 electronically, on or before Aug 31, 2019 - If the same is not feasible, the petitioner be permitted to manually file the Form TRAN-1 before such date: HC
- Writ petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-1761-HC-AHM-GST
Dangar Vashrambhai Arjanbhai Vs State Of Gujarat
GST - Applicant is engaged in the business of Transport and claims to be the owner of a Truck which came to be seized by the respondent authorities along with the goods while in transit - applicant prays for release of truck along with goods pending the final disposal of the petition.
Held: Writ application has something to do with Sections 129 and 130 respectively of the GST Act, 2017 and the Court is examining the larger issues involved insofar as the applicability of the two sections referred to above is concerned - since the amount of Rs.2,29,520/- has been deposited by the writ applicant towards the tax and penalty , respondents are directed to immediately release the truck as well as the goods seized by them under the provisions of the GST Act: High Court
- Interim relief granted: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-1760-HC-AHM-GST
Khamal Rameshbhai Valabhai Vs State Of Gujarat
GST - Applicant is engaged in the business of Transport and claims to be the owner of a Truck which came to be seized by the respondent authorities along with the goods while in transit - applicant prays for release of truck along with goods pending the final disposal of the petition.
Held: Writ application has something to do with Sections 129 and 130 respectively of the GST Act, 2017 and the Court is examining the larger issues involved insofar as the applicability of the two sections referred to above is concerned - since the amount of Rs.1,90,468/- Plus (+) Rs.12,708/- has been deposited by the writ applicant towards the tax and penalty, respondents are directed to immediately release the truck as well as the goods seized by them under the provisions of the GST Act: High Court
- Interim relief granted: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-1759-HC-KERALA-GST
Hyundai Construction Equipment India Pvt Ltd Vs State Tax Officer
GST - Petitioners challenge the order as illegal on the ground that the respondent had failed to consider the documents placed on record - alternative submission is that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal u/s 107 of the Act and one of the reasons why the petitioner is compelled to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is that the 1st respondent confirmed invocation of bank guarantee there by facilitating encashment of the bank guarantee even before the period available for filing appeal is over.
Held: Writ petition is disposed of by relegating the petitioner to work out the remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act - The respondents are directed not to encash the bank guarantee for a period of 90 days (from today) and it is open to the petitioner to obtain orders as may be necessary in this behalf after the appeal and the stay petition are moved before the appellate authority - The stay petition if, is filed, the petition is considered and disposed of before the expiry of three months period granted by the Court: High Court [para 3]
- Petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-1758-HC-AHM-GST
Batta Narendrabhai Meghabhai Vs State of Gujarat
GST - Applicant is engaged in the business of Transport and claims to be the owner of a Truck which came to be seized by the respondent authorities along with the goods while in transit - applicant prays for release of truck along with goods pending the final disposal of the petition.
Held: Writ application has something to do with Sections 129 and 130 respectively of the GST Act, 2017 and the Court is examining the larger issues involved insofar as the applicability of the two sections referred to above is concerned - since the amount of Rs.2,06,680/- Plus (+) Rs.26,440/- has been deposited by the writ applicant towards the tax and penalty, respondents are directed to immediately release the truck as well as the goods seized by them under the provisions of the GST Act: High Court
- Interim relief granted: GUAJARAT HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-1755-HC-ALL-GST
Maa Vindhyavasini Pvt Ltd Vs State Of UP
GST - The present writ petition was filed to contest the jurisdiction of the Revenue authorities concerned, to seize a consignment of goods belonging to the petitioner - Such consignment was headed to Bihar from Kanpur and were detained en route - On adjudication, penalty was imposed on the petitioner.
Held - The petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy of filing statutory appeal u/s 107 of the Act - The pleas raised before this court can also be raised before the appellate authority - Should the petitioner file such appeal within one week's time, the authority concerned is directed to decide the same within three weeks' time - The petitioner is also directed to move an application for seeking release of the vehicle and the goods, which can be released as per Rule 140 of the CGST Rules upon furnishing bank guarantee: HC
- Writ petition disposed of: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-1747-HC-KERALA-GST
Tiger Steels Vs State Of Kerala
GST - Petitioner, apprehending invocation of bank guarantee furnished during the proceedings u/s 129 of the Kerala GST has filed the writ petition - After perusing records, Bench is satisfied that a direction could be issued to respondents not to encash the bank guarantee for a period of four weeks - respondent is directed to communicate the decision taken u/s 129 within one week - Petition disposed of: High Court
- Petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-1746-HC-AHM-GST
Vimal Yashwantgiri Goswami Vs State Of Gujarat
GST - Petitioner praying for issue of a Writ of Mandamus and/or Writ of Prohibition and/or any other appropriate writ, order of direction, directing the respondents not to take any actions against the petitioner being proprietor of the Heugo Metal exercising powers under Section 69 read with Section 132 without following due procedure of law of assessment and adjudication of alleged evasion of GST as contemplated under Section 61, Section 73 of under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Held: Powers of arrest under Section 69 of the Act, 2017 are to be exercised with lot of care and circumspection - Prosecution should normally be launched only after the adjudication is completed - To put it in other words, there must be, in the first place, a determination that a person is "liable to a penalty" - Till that point of time, the entire case proceeds on the basis that there must be an apprehended evasion of tax by the assessee - In the two decisions MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PVT. LTD. - 2016-TIOL-1957-HC-DEL-ST as well as M/s. Jayachandran Alloys (P) Ltd. - 2019-TIOL-1021-HC-MAD-GST, emphasis has been laid on the safeguards as enshrined under the Constitution of India and in particular Article 22 which pertains to arrest and Article 21 which mandates that no person shall be deprived of his life and liberty for the authority of law - Notice be issued to the respondents returnable on 18th September, 2019 - In the meantime, no coercive steps of arrest shall be taken against the writ applicant: High Court [para 3.1, 4.1]
- Notice issued: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-1745-HC-AHM-GST
Kanchan Metal Vs State Of Gujarat
GST - Writ applicant is engaged in business of trading of metal scrap - truck of transporter came to be seized by authorities along with the goods while in transit - as the Writ application has something to do with sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act and the Court is examining the larger issues involved insofar as applicability of the two sections is concerned, after taking note that the amount of Rs.3,81,852/- has been deposited by the writ-applicant towards the tax and penalty, the respondents are directed to immediately release the truck as well as the goods seized: High Court
- Interim relief granted: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-1744-HC-AHM-GST
Singal Road Carrier Vs State Of Gujarat
GST - Seizure of Truck - Petitioner, a transporter, prays for release of his truck pending the final disposal of the petition - Writ applicant is entitled to some interim order as this writ application has something to do with sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act - As court is looking into the larger issue which has been raised in a batch of writ applications, Bench is inclined to release the conveyance and goods upon the condition that the writ applicant deposits an amount of Rs.3,11,016/- with the authority concerned consequent upon which the conveyance and goods shall be released: High Court
Interim relief granted: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-1742-HC-KERALA-GST
VE Commercial Vehcles Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner challenges the interim order passed by the Single Judge wherein the appellant had challenged the validity of section 129 of the Act to the extent it provides imposition of tax and penalty in the manner as set out therein, in cases where there are only mere technical breaches or contraventions of the provisions of the Act and where there is no evasion of tax, the above said provision was challenged as illegal and violative of Article 14 and 300 A of the Constitution of India - appellant sought for an interim relief in the writ petition to direct the respondents not to encash the Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioner at the time of release of the intercepted goods - The Single Judge had passed the impugned order by observing that, the appellant can work out their remedies under law against any order which may be passed against pursuant to Ext.P11 and will be entitled to obtain orders from the appropriate forum; that since the appellant had already chosen to get release of the detained goods by complying with that procedure, granting of any interim order as prayed for would amount to deviate from the order of release made under Ext.P8, which is in compliance with Section 129 - Single Judge also observed that, putting any restrainment on encashment of Bank Guarantee may result in deviating the conditions under which the release was already ordered - appellant contended that encashment of the Bank Guarantee on the basis of order, if any, passed to the extent of imposing penalty, will in turn defeat the purpose of the writ petition itself and that it was only just and proper in the interest of justice that the Single Judge ought to have restrained the respondents from encashing the Bank Guarantee, till the writ petition is disposed of.
Held: Division Bench notes that the writ petition was filed at a stage after release of the goods on the appellant furnishing the Bank Guarantee with respect to the security deposit demanded through Ext.P4 notice - As observed by the Single Judge, release of the goods was effected on the basis of the Bank Guarantee furnished, in compliance with the requirement under Section 129 of the CGST Act - The interim relief sought for in the writ petition is to restrain encashment of the Bank Guarantee - If it is granted, it will amount to an order in anticipation that the adjudication will culminate in imposition of penalty - If such an anticipatory restrainment is put on the respondents, as observed by the Single Judge, that will be in a manner defeating the interest of the respondents who ordered release of the goods by securing the probable amount which may be due after the adjudication, in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 129 of the Act - Division Bench, therefore, does not find any illegality, error or impropriety in the judgment of the Single Judge - appellant will be at liberty to take appropriate challenges against the order imposing penalty, if any, passed against them, either in the writ petition or in any other appropriate proceedings - interest of justice on equitable basis can be achieved by issuing a direction to the respondents not to encash the Bank Guarantee furnished by the appellant, if ultimately the adjudication goes against them and if penalty is imposed in such proceedings, until the expiry of 14 days from the date of service of order on such adjudication: High Court [para 4 to 6]
- Petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-1727-HC-ALL-GST
Shunty Bunty Automobiles Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Grievance of the petitioner is that he had applied manually before the respondents for processing of GST TRAN-1 form but his application has been rejected due to which he is likely to suffer loss of the credit - Considering the facts and circumstances, respondents are directed to allow petitioner to make fresh application and if the same is made within 15 days, application to be considered and proceeded by respondents in accordance with lw - Petition disposed of: High Court
- Petition disposed of: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Quarry Owners Association Vs UoI
GST - Refund of unutilized Input Tax credit - Petitioner seeks a declaration that Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules as amended is ultra vires the Constitution of India and provisions of CGST Act - To be heard along with Special Civil Application No. 14155/2018: High Court
- Notice issued: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
AAR CASE
2019-TIOL-251-AAR-GST
Durga Projects And Infrastructure Pvt Ltd
GST - In respect of partially completed flats having identified customers before GST regime, appellant is liable to pay service tax under the FA, 1994 proportionate to the services provided up to 30.06.2017 and from 01.07.2017 onwards they are liable to pay GST proportionate to the services provided effective 01.07.2017: AAR
GST - In respect of partially completed flats where customers are identified after implementation of GST, applicant is liable to pay GST on transaction value of supply: AAR
GST - Where no customers are identified in respect of partially completed flats, applicant is not liable to pay GST as no supply is involved - however, if supply is made prior to issuance of completion certificate, GST is liable to be paid on transaction value of supply: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2019-TIOL-250-AAR-GST
United Engineering Works
GST - Applicant seeks a ruling on the applicable rate for the manufacture and supply of submersible pump sets and accessories with installation, electrification and energisation under the Ganga Kalyana scheme to Social welfare departments of the Government of Karnataka meant for various beneficiaries (farmers) and they also provide guarantee and maintenance of installed submersible pump sets till 2 years.
Held: Supplies made qualify as a composite supply and tax liability is governed by s.8 of the CGST Act - accordingly the composite supply comprising two or more supplies, one of which is a principal supply, shall be treated as supply of such principal supply and the applicable GST rate on the composite supply would be the rate of GST applicable to the principal supply viz. the applicable GST rate is the rate that is applicable on submersible pump sets: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2019-TIOL-249-AAR-GST
Durga Projects And Infrastructure Pvt Ltd
GST - In respect of partially completed flats having identified customers before GST regime, appellant is liable to pay service tax under the FA, 1994 proportionate to the services provided up to 30.06.2017 and from 01.07.2017 onwards they are liable to pay GST proportionate to the services provided effective 01.07.2017: AAR GST - In respect of partially completed flats where customers are identified after implementation of GST, applicant is liable to pay GST on transaction value of supply: AAR GST - Where no customers are identified in respect of partially completed flats, applicant is not liable to pay GST as no supply is involved - however, if supply is made prior to issuance of completion certificate, GST is liable to be paid on transaction value of supply: AAR - Application disposed of: AAR
2019-TIOL-248-AAR-GST
Toolcomp Systems Pvt Ltd
GST - Applicant seeks advance ruling on the applicability of tool amortisation cost received freely on returnable basis in GST regime. Held: Cost of tools supplied by OEM on FOC basis is not required to be added to the value of parts supplied by applicant - said value is not liable for GST - CBIC clarification 47/21/2018-GST dated 08.06.2018, clarification 1.1 and 1.2 applicable: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2019-TIOL-247-AAR-GST
Sanghvi Movers Ltd
GST - Applicant seeks a ruling as to whether on facts and circumstances of the case, since Integrated Goods and Services Tax ("IGST") is payable on inter-state movement of cranes by the supplier (i.e. SML Maharashtra), whether the recipient office of SML (i.e. SML Tamil Nadu) duly registered under GST and receiving such cranes for further supply on hire charges would be eligible to avail input tax credit (ITC) of IGST charged?
Held: As per proviso to Section 16(2), the applicant will not be eligible for full input tax credit as they are not paying the full amount to their supplier SML HO as seen in the MOU where payments are netted off against receivables - Applicant has stated that as per proviso to Rule 37, the condition to make actual payment to supplier within 180 days is not applicable to the applicant, however, the proviso clearly states that, the value of supplies "made without consideration" as specified in Schedule I shall be deemed to have been paid as per second proviso to Section 16(2) - In the instant case, there is a consideration to be paid by SML to SML HO as per Para 10 of the MOU and the consideration is specified in the invoices raised by SML HO on the applicant, hence proviso to Rule 37 i.e. exemption from making full payment, will not be applicable to the applicant - Accordingly, the applicant will not be eligible for the full ITC as per the inward supplies received from SML HO as they would be required to reverse such ITC if taken as per second proviso Section 16(2) of CGST Act and Rule 37 of CGST Rules - In the instant case, the transaction is an inter-state supply as the supplier is in a different state from the place of supply, the applicant would be paying IGST on their inward supplies from SML HO - As per Section 20(iv) of IGST Act, provisions of, Central Goods and Services Tax Act relating to input tax credit shall, mutatis mutandis , apply, so far as may be, in relation to integrated tax as they apply in relation to central tax as if they are enacted under this Act - Accordingly, the applicant is not eligible for the full ITC on the inward supplies received from SML HO, but only to the extent specified in the restriction as per second proviso Section 16(2) of CGST Act and Rule 37 of CGST Rules read with Section 20(iv) of IGST Act: AAR
- Application disposed of :AAR
2019-TIOL-246-AAR-GST
Durga Projects And Infrastructure Pvt Ltd
GST - Applicant is engaged in construction and sale of residential apartments and residential complexes under joint development agreements - applicant submits that Construction was commenced during pre-GST regime and continued under GST regime; that tax shall be applicable under GST law, only on the portion of work executed under GST law - Applicant, however, seeks a ruling as to whether Applicant is liable for GST towards work executed under JDA on land owner's portion where work commenced during pre-GST and continued under GST Law and if tax is applicable, the valuation for payment of tax.
Held: In the instant case, it is apparent and also an admitted fact that the construction commenced during pre-GST regime and continued thereafter also - Further, the applicant has not furnished any information as to whether the applicant has transferred the possession of the land owner's share of flats or not - Hence it is inferred that the possession of the land owner's share of flats has not been given to the land owner, therefore the said possession obviously would happen during the GST regime and hence would attract applicable GST - In terms of Notification No. 4/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 25.01.2018 the time of supply would fall under the purview of GST law, therefore the tax liability arises not partly under the earlier law and partly under the GST law, but entirely under the GST law - accordingly, Applicant is liable to pay GST towards work executed under Joint Development Agreement on Land owner's portion, on the value to be arrived at in terms of para 2 of the Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 at the time of transfer of possession of the land owners' portion of the flats: AAR
- Application disposed of :AAR
FAQs
FAQs - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019
ARTICLES
GST - An agenda for Reforms - Part 50 - Lapsing of Credit - Pan - India Applicability of High Court Order
Kerala Flood Cess - Will it open the flood gates of litigation?
Payment of pre-deposit through credit: Open to challenge?
GST 'galloping' on Highway of Litigation!
Appeal - Entertainment
