GST NEWS

GSTN 51% equity being transferred to Centre & States: MoS

CGST RULES NOTIFICATIONS

62/2019

Seeks to notify the transition plan with respect to J&K reorganization w.e.f. 31.10.2019

61/2019

Seeks to extend the due date for furnishing of return in FORM GSTR-3B for registered persons in Jammu and Kashmir for the month of October, 2019

60/2019

Seeks to extend the due date for furnishing of return in FORM GSTR-3B for registered persons in Jammu and Kashmir for the months of July, 2019 to September, 2019

59/2019

Seeks to extend the due date for furnishing of return in FORM GSTR-7 for registered persons in Jammu and Kashmir for the months of July, 2019 to October, 2019.

58/2019

Seeks to extend the due date for furnishing of return in FORM GSTR-1 for registered persons in Jammu and Kashmir having aggregate turnover more than 1.5 crore rupees for the month of October, 2019.

57/2019

Seeks to extend the due date for furnishing of return in FORM GSTR-1 for registered persons in Jammu and Kashmir having aggregate turnover more than 1.5 crore rupees for the months of July, 2019 to September, 2019

GST HIGH COURT CASES

2019-TIOL-2676-HC-KOL-GST

Mrinal Ghosh Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner challenges the vires of rule 117 of CGST Rules as being ultra vires section 140 of the CGST Act on the ground that the rule makes it condition precedent for an assessee to file GST TRAN - 1 within the specified period, to be able to carry forward credit of eligible duties on stock as on 30th June, 2017 - Petitioner submits that they had written a letter dated 9 th January 2018 addressed to the Joint Commissioner that they could not file the TRAN-1 on 27.12.2017, the due date, due to internal system failure from 25 th December 2017 to 2 nd January 2018 and that huge transitional credit is involved - Petitioner draws attention to supplementary affidavit which discloses report signed on 30th July, 2019 by Senior Scientific Officer, State Forensic Laboratory, Home, Police, Department, Government of West Bengal from which it can be inferred that an attempt of furnishing TRAN-1 was attempted by the petitioner before the ultimatum date; further submitted that acquired credit cannot be denied on technicality; that there have been several orders passed by different High Courts, particularly, Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. = 2019-TIOL-2519-HC-P&H-GST, paragraphs 10 and 12 in support of their claim for relief.

Held: On facts, case of petitioner is that it could not attempt to file GST TRAN -1 form on GST portal because his own system was down - On 9th January, 2018, deadline having expired on 27th December, 2017, petitioner said so to Revenue - Petitioner then has obtained a report, upon forensic examination of his system, having provided password, which report confirms petitioner's contention - writ petition is allowed in view of similar reliefs granted by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Adfert Technologies P Ltd. (supra) - Concerned respondents in Revenue will allow petitioner to file GST TRAN - 1 form to enable him to obtain credit accrued in his favour prior to the transition, on his stock as on 30th June, 2017 - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 8 to 12]

- Petition disposed of: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-2675-HC-CHHATTISGARH-GST

Yamuna Trading Corporation Vs UoI

GST - Constitutional validity of Circular dated 05.07.2017 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, assigning functions of 'Proper Officer' under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Gazette Notification dated 01.07.2017 are put to challenge in these writ petitions - The basic challenge is with reference to the alleged lack of power of the 2nd Respondent for issuing Notification purported to be in exercise of Section 3(2), read with Section 5 of the CGST Act; as the said power is exclusively vested upon the Central Government and not the 2nd Respondent/Board - It is further pointed out that, the appointment of 'Proper Officer' as envisaged under the statute can be effected only by the 'Commissioner in the Board' {as evident from sub-section (2) of Section 168 of the CGST Act} and further that, it can only be done by way of a Notification in the official gazette as envisaged under Section 167 of the CGST Act - It is the further case of the Petitioners, that the 2nd Respondent/Board has identified multiple authorities to act as Central Tax Officers under the CGST Act and they are exercising the powers of 'Proper Officer'; by virtue of which the Petitioners are being harassed and they have to appear before different Officers placed in different states, which is totally alien to the scheme of the statute - Petitioners are required to have registration only in the 'place of supply' as envisaged under Section 22 of the CGST Act and hence, it can only be in Chhattisgarh, contend the Petitioners - It is also pointed out that the scheme of the CGST Act is 'One Assessee, One Subject Matter, One Officer' and not 'One Assessee, One Subject Matter and Different Officers'; which otherwise would lead to chaos and is contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court in Syed Ali and Another = 2011-TIOL-20-SC-CUS .

Held: After the final hearing held on 16.10.2019, the matter was taken up reserving judgment - Later, in the course of working up the position with reference to the relevant provisions of law and the notifications, Court came across a 'corrigendum notification' dated 29.07.2019 published in the official gazette, which is to the following effect that there was an inadvertent mistake in having issued the original notification dated 19.06.2017 and the subsequent Notification dated 01.07.2017, wrongly mentioning it as having issued by the 'Board', instead of stating as issued by the "Government", and hence, it was corrected accordingly - Accordingly, matter was listed on 22.10.2019 and the parties were heard again - In view of the turn of events, it is quite evident that the mistake which appeared in Notification dated 01.07.2017 and the previous notification dated 19.06.2017 showing them as issued by the 'Board' stands corrected, as having issued by the "Government" - The notification having already been published in the official gazette as stated in Section 2(80) of the CGST Act read with Section 3(39) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the appointment effected in the said notification, in exercise of powers under Section 3, read with Section 5 of the CGST Act and Section 3 of the IGST Act, 2017 has been issued by the 'Government', with whom the exclusive power is vested in this regard - By virtue of the aforesaid notification issued by the Government, all the officers in the Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence, Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax and the Directorate General of Audit, as specified in Column No. 2 of the table given therein, came to be appointed as 'Central Tax Officers', investing all the powers upon them under the CGST Act, 2017, the IGST Act, 2017 and the Rules made thereunder throughout the country of India, as are exercisable by the Central Tax Officers of the corresponding rank as specified in Column No. 3 of the said table - It was based on the said proceedings, that Circular dated 05.07.2017 was issued by the Board, assigning the functions of 'Proper Officer' upon the Officers mentioned in column No. 2 of the table therein, with the functions as the 'Proper Officer' in relation to the various Sections of the CGST Act, 2017 or the Rules made thereunder given in the corresponding entry of Column No. 3 of the table - It is relevant to note that the Petitioners have not raised any challenge against the 'Corrigendum Notification' bearing No. GSR 532 (E) and GSR 533(E), both dated 29.07.2019, published in the Gazette of India the same day, nor have raised any challenge with regard to any statutory provisions - The version of the Respondents on all the points raised, including as to the necessity to appoint 'Proper Officers' conferring power through out the territory of India for the specific purposes made out, stands upheld - The contention/challenge raised by the Petitioners, to the contrary, stands repelled - As the challenge raised against Circular and Notification with reference to the competence of the issuing authority and the manner of issuance does not hold any water at all, the writ petitions are devoid of any merit and they are dismissed accordingly: High Court [para 21, 22, 24, 25]

- Petitions dismissed: CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-2678-HC-KAR-GST

Bright Road Logistics Vs CTO

GST - Petitioner is a transporter - respondent has proceeded to pass the order dated 22.10.2019 impugned under Section 129(1)(b) of the e KGST Act/CGST Act holding that the petitioner has no locus to dispute or raise issue either on behalf of the consignor/consignee or the person in charge of the conveyance, hence, the present writ petition.

Held: Court is of the considered opinion that the order impugned cannot be held to be justifiable for the reason that the respondent having issued show-cause notice calling upon the petitioner to file objections, cannot turn around and take a decision that the petitioner has no locus standi either to file objections or to put forth dispute on behalf of the consignor/consignee or the owner of the conveyance - Indeed, the order impugned is against the principles of natural justice which is the fundamental parameter required to be observed by the quasi- judicial authority - petitioner is at liberty to file any additional objections to the show-cause notice dated 11.10.2019 issued under Section 129(1)(b) of the Act within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order - The respondent shall consider the preliminary objections as well as final/additional objections to be filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law and an appropriate order shall be passed in an expedite manner - the impugned order dated 22.10.2019 is quashed and the proceedings are restored to the file of the respondent - respondent shall provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after considering the objections filed/to be filed by the petitioner shall decide the matter in accordance with law in an expedite manner.: High Court [para 6 to 8]

- Petition disposed of: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-2677-HC-HP-GST

Jay Bee Industries Vs UoI

GST - Due to the defects in the system/glitches on the portal, the petitioner was unable to fill up the TRAN-1 Form and furnish the details on the portal despite repeated and best efforts made by it - petitioner filed requests/reminders dated 15.01.2018 and 05.03.2018 to the respondents for allowing it to carry forward the input tax credit on the stocks lying on 30.06.2017 at regular intervals, but to no avail - They have, therefore, filed the present petition seeking a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction to the respondents to reopen the portal and allow the petitioner to file the TRAN-1 form so as to avail and utilize the Input credit in respect of duties/taxes paid on the inputs held in stock and that contained in semi-finished and finished goods.

Held: It is not in dispute that there were glitches in the system which led to filing of petitions before various High Courts of the Country and these Courts have granted the relief to the taxpayers by directing the authorities to open the portal and/or receive the manually filed Forms and/or approach the Nodal Officers appointed by the Government in this regard - it has been held that GST is a new progressive levy - One of the progressive ideal of GST is to avoid cascading taxes. GST Laws contemplate seamless flow of tax credits on all eligible inputs - The input tax credits in TRAN-1 are the credits legitimately accrued in the GST transition - The due date contemplated under the laws to claim the transitional credit is procedural in nature - Therefore, in view of the GST regime and the IT platform being new, it may not be justifiable to expect the users to back up digital evidences - Even, under the old taxation laws, it is a settled legal position that substantive input credits cannot be denied or altered on account of procedural grounds - Bench has no reason to doubt the claim of the petitioner that it had made genuine efforts for filing the returns online, but such attempts failed because of technical glitch - issue is about the technical glitch in the system which either does not permit a rectification in a situation where a dealer may have, due to inadvertence, or a bonafide error, not correctly filled up a form or where the system, due to a limitation in the algorithm/software programme, did not accept the entries sought to be made by the dealer - In the catena of judgments cited, it has been judicially recognized that GST system is still in a "trial and error phase", as far as its implementation is concerned and because of this the Courts had been approached by the dealers facing genuine difficulties in filing returns, claiming input tax credit through the GST portal - As a matter of fact, the Court acknowledged the procedural difficulties in claiming input tax credit in the TRAN-1 Form and the Court permitted the respondents "either to open the portal so as enable the petitioner to file the TRAN-1 electronically for claiming the transitional credit or accept the manually filed TRAN-1 and to allow the input credit claimed after processing the same, if otherwise eligible in law" - Writ petition is, therefore, allowed by directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to file TRAN-1 either electronically or manually statutory form(s) TRAN-1 on or before 31.12.2019 - The respondents are at liberty to verify the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner and its claim shall not be denied only on the ground that the same was not filed by 27.12.2017: High Court [para 11, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21]

- Petition disposed of: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT