TOP NEWS
GST - Another mega ITC fraud detected in Delhi
Delhi GST detects huge evasion by Security agency
GST NOTIFICATION
CGST RATE NOTIFICATION
cgst_rate_01
GST - Govt notifies new tax rate for lottery w.e.f March 1, 2020
IGST RATE NOTIFICATION
igst_rate_01
GST - Govt notifies new tax rate for lottery w.e.f March 1, 2020
UTGST RATE NOTIFICATION
utgst_rate_01
GST - Govt notifies new tax rate for lottery w.e.f March 1, 2020
GST CASES
HIGH COURT CASES
2020-TIOL-434-HC-CHHATTISGARH-GST
Jagadamba Hardware Stores Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner seeks issuance of a writ to the respondents granting permission to the petitioner to submit TRAN-1 form electronically by opening electronic portal or in the alternative allow the petitioner to tender the form manually and thereafter the petitioner's claim be assessed for input tax credit in accordance with law - Petitioner submits that they tried to fill TRAN-1 but because of the technical glitches and error it could not be filled online on the portal of the department; that because of the petitioner being unsuccessful in filling TRAN-1 online on the portal, they could not even obtain the screen shot to show the proof of their having attempted to fill in TRAN-1 - Subsequently, the petitioner approached the GST Help Desk on 22.01.2019 who vide Annexure P/4 asked the petitioner to approach the designated Nodal Officer as per circular No.39/13/2018-GST dated 03.04.2018 with evidence of technical glitches/error - That subsequently the petitioner approached the Nodal Officer on 06.05.2019 requesting to permit the petitioner to submit TRAN-1 manually which was however not accepted which has led to the filing of the present writ petition.
Held: There is no proof adduced by the petitioner of his having attempted to fill TRAN-1 during the said extended period up till 27.12.2017 - Govt. of India was very clear on the issue that the last date of filling up of TRAN-1 extended up till 31.04.2018 shall not be applicable in general, but would be entitled for only those genuine tax payers who had in the past attempted to fill TRAN-1 but were unsuccessful; that the circular dated 03.04.2018 would be implemented in line with the procedure prescribed and also on fulfilling the conditions prescribed therein - There is no evidence made available by the petitioner of having tried to fill up TRAN-1, but was unsuccessful for availing the facilities so provided under circular dated 03.04.2018 - What is also surprising is that the petitioner also has not mentioned anything in respect of having approached any of the competent authorities in the department raising his concern about his inability in filling up of TRAN-1 - petitioner had approached the GST Help Desk only on 22.01.2019 - There is no proof either oral or documentary to establish or substantiate his contention of having tried to fill TRAN-1 electronically on the portal of the department - What is clearly to be understood is that the Govt. of India realizing the difficulties of genuine traders had issued a circular on 03.04.2018 permitting those traders, who were unsuccessful in filling up of TRAN-1, to do so after showing proper evidence in respect of their attempts and failure - judgments cited in support are distinguishable on facts itself - writ benefit cannot be extended to such indolent persons who sleeps over their rights and duties without any plausible explanation and justification and now at the belated stage wake up from slumber and try to get a relief from the High Court without any bonafide ground - Court is compelled to draw an inference that the petitioner had infact never tried to fill TRAN-1 within the stipulated period or within the extended period and also was not able to take advantage of circular dated 03.04.2018 if at all if he had bonafidely tried to fill TRAN-1 - writ petition fails and is accordingly rejected: High Court [para 8, 10, 12, 13, 14]
- Petition rejected: CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-415-HC-DEL-GST
Nestle India Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs.16,58,32,723/- out of Rs.89,73,16,384/- determined as the profiteered amount by the Authority, hence interim order staying the recovery of the balance amount is continued - however, the same would not come in the way where suo moto action has been taken -limitation of period of six months provided in Rule 133 of the CGST Rules, 2017 within which the authority should make its order from the date of receipt of the report of the Directorate General of Anti Profiteering, appears to be directory inasmuch as no consequence of non-adherence of the said period of six months is prescribed either in the CGST Act or the rules framed thereunder - Matter to be listed on 20.05.2020: High Court [para 2, 4]
- Matter listed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-413-HC-AHM-GST
Nathalal Maganlal Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat
GST - On 30th December 2019, the son of the writ-applicant came to be arrested by the respondent no.4 in exercise of powers under Section 69 of the CGST, 2017 - The arrest was on the reasonable belief that the son of the writ-applicant has committed offence under Section 132 of the Act 2017 - son of the writ-applicant came to be produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Ahmedabad who, in turn, remanded the son of the writ-applicant to the judicial custody - Writ applicant is questioning the legality and validity of the Notification No.EST/1/Jurisdiction/B.2168 dated 5th July 2017, by which the Commissioner of State Tax has delegated all his powers to the Special Commissioner of State Tax and the Additional Commissioners of State Tax.
Held: Delegation generally means parting of powers by the person who grants the delegation, but it also means conferring of an authority to do things which otherwise that person would have to do himself - As a general rule, whatever a person has the power to do himself, he may do by means of an agent - This broad rule is limited by the operation of the principle that a delegated authority cannot be re-delegated, delegatus non-potest delegare - The naming of a delegate to do an act involving a discretion indicates that the delegate was selected because of his peculiar skill and the confidence reposed in him and there is a presumption that he is required to do the act himself and cannot re-delegate his authority - As a general rule, "if the statute directs that certain acts shall be done in a specified manner or by certain persons, their performance in any other manner than that specified or by any other person than one of those named is impliedly prohibited" - Normally, a discretion entrusted by the Parliament to an administrative organ must be exercised by that organ itself - At the same time, it is settled position of law that the maxim "delegatus non-potest delegare" must not be pushed too far - The maxim does not embody a rule of law but it indicates a rule of construction of a statute or other instrument conferring an authority - Prima facie, a discretion conferred by a statute on any authority is intended to be exercised by that authority and by no other, however, the intention may be negatived by any contrary indications in the language, scope or object of the statute - The construction that would best achieve the purpose and object of the statute should be adopted - it is essential that the delegated power should be exercised by the authority upon whom it is conferred and by no one else - At the same time, in the present administrative setup, the extreme judicial aversion to delegation should not be carried to an extreme - There is only one Commissioner of State Tax in the State of Gujarat, and having regard to the enormous functions and duties to be discharged under the new tax regime, he has been empowered to delegate his powers to the Special Commissioner of State Tax and the Additional Commissioners of State Tax - Bench takes notice of the fact that the delegation has been authorized expressly under Section 5(3) of the Act - Bench would have definitely interfered if the Special Commissioner or the Additional Commissioners would have further delegated the power to officers subordinate to them but that is not the case here, therefore, the challenge to the legality and validity of the impugned notification should fail: High Court [para 8, 9, 10, 30, 31, 39, 40, 41]
GST - Observations made by the Court in paragraph 35 in the case of Valerius Industries [ 2019-TIOL-2094-HC-AHM-GST ] that Commissioner could not have delegated the powers conferred by the legislature to the three subordinate officers by virtue of the order dated 15th January 2018 could be termed as per incurium as such observations run contrary to the Supreme Court decisions - dictum as laid in the aforesaid Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court [ Raghunath v. Indore Municipal Corporation, Indore, AIR 1987 (MP) 181 ] is that, normally the administrative functions and powers can be delegated in favour of a coordinate authority or to a subordinate authority - When administrative function is statutory in nature and the function or the power is assigned under the statute, it should be performed or exercised by that authority unless the power to delegate such function or exercise of power is specifically provided or may be inferred by necessary implication from the provisions contained in the statute - dictum as laid in the aforesaid decision is that, be it quasi-judicial or administrative power, the same can be delegated provided the law expressly or by clear implication permits it to be delegated - writ-applications fail and are hereby rejected: High Court [para 43 to 45, 52, 57, 60]
- Petitions rejected: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-412-HC-AP-GST
Megha Engineering And Infrastructures Ltd Vs CCT
GST - Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017 - High Court by its order dated 18 April 2019 had held that once it is statutorily prescribed that payment can be made either by way of cash or from out of the credit available in the electronic credit ledger, the date of payment in respect of both assumes significance for determining the liability to pay interest; that in view of s.50(1), the liability to pay interest arises automatically, when a person who is liable to pay tax fails to pay the tax to the Government within the prescribed period; that liability to pay interest is in respect of the period for which the tax remains unpaid; that the stand taken by the department that the liability is compensatory in nature appears to be correct; that until a return is filed as self-assessed, no entitlement to credit and no actual entry of credit in the electronic credit ledger takes place; that if no payment is made, the mere availability of the same (in the electronic credit ledger) will not tantamount to actual payment; that as the payment of the tax liability, partly in cash and partly in the form of claim for ITC was made beyond the period prescribed, the liability to pay interest u/s 50(1) arises automatically on the entire upaid tax and the petitioner cannot escape from this liability; that only when the payment is made, the Government gets a right over the money available in the ledger - Petitioner u/s 151 of the CPC prays that the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 to 3 not to initiate any coercive action to recover the interest amount of Rs. 6,03,07,462/- as per their letter C. No. V/12/01/18-19(P&I), 28.11.2018 otherwise the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and damage.
Held: As this Court is already considering the issue of whether any notice would have to be given u/s 73(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, in the event interest is not paid under Section 50 thereof, there shall be a direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 not to initiate any coercive action against the petitioner until further orders - Matter listed on 15.10.2019: High Court [para 1, 2]
- Matter listed : ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-406-HC-KERALA-GST
Akay Flavours And Aromatics Pvt Ltd Vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs
GST - Refund of IGST - Bench orders the competent authority among the respondents 2 to 5 to take necessary steps to process the claim of the petitioner for refund in the light of Ext.P21 and after following the procedure mentioned in the abovesaid letter dated 08.01.2020 and to take necessary consequential steps for honoring the claim of the petitioner for refund, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, without much delay, within a period of 4 weeks - it will be open to the petitioner to submit representation before the competent authority among the respondents in the matter of his claim for interest if any and such claim should also be later considered and decided by competent respondent official concerned within 4 weeks thereafter - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 5, 6]
- Petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-405-HC-KERALA-GST
A K G Memorial Labour Contract Society Ltd Vs Director General of Gst Intelligence
GST - Petitioner is the labour contract society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is a charitable society - petitioner is providing manpower and security guards to Government/semi Government Institutions - respondent have issued notices withholding the payments of wages to the petitioner - petitioner has expressed his willingness to pay the GST amount, if any, if it is so quantified and intimated – petitioners have, therefore, filed the writ petition.
Held: Taking note of the facts and circumstances of this case as disclosed in the pleadings and materials on record, it is ordered that the 3rd respondent will take up the plea made by the petitioner in Ext.P4 and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard, may take a considered decision on the request made therein for releasing the documents mentioned therein without much delay, preferably within a period of 3 weeks – Petition disposed of: High Court [para 2]
- Petition disposed of : KERALA HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-404-HC-CHHATTISGARH-GST
Shankar Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh
GST - Challenge is to the impugned demand notice dated 17.01.2020 which is an order of demand of tax and penalty issued by the respondent No.5 - department had intercepted a Truck and on the ground that the vehicle was carrying large quantity of Pan Masala and there was discrepancy in the valuation of the goods, the vehicle was detained and the goods in the vehicle were seized - notice was later issued to the driver, the person incharge of the vehicle but the reply to the notice was furnished by the owners of the goods - Petitioner submits that the driver has got nothing to do with the tax demand and penalty; that the driver was carrying the documents mentioned in rule 138A of the Rules, 2017 and, therefore, there is no illegality on the part of the petitioner/driver insofar as the requirement of law is concerned; that if at all if the respondent department intends for confiscation proceeding or to initiate appropriate proceedings, that would be under Sections 129 and 130 of the Rules, 2017, which may be against the owner of the goods and not against the petitioner/driver - counsel for the Union of India submitted that infact subsequently the owner has entered appearance before the competent authority and is contesting the case by submitting his response to the proceedings and any further order would as such be passed only against the owner of the goods.
Held: Court is of the opinion that the petitioner as such as of now would not have any grievance so far as demand notice dated 17.01.2020 is concerned in view of the fact that the owner has subsequently entered appearance in the same proceeding and is contesting the case on merits - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 6, 7]
- Petition disposed of: CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-400-HC-MUM-GST
Great Sands Consulting Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner has challenged the order dated 1 January 2020 cancelling their registration - Petitioner submits that it is apparent from the impugned order that it is primarily based on the ground that the Petitioner has not given any reply to the show cause notice; however, the petitioner states that they had submitted to the State Tax officer a reply on 30 December 2019 and accordingly the Bench had sought ascertainment of the facts involved - Counsel for Revenue confirmed that the reply has been endorsed on 30 December 2019.
Held: It is quite obvious that the impugned order has been passed without considering the reply and, therefore, the impugned order will have to be set aside and the proceedings will have to be restored to the stage of show cause notice - Impugned order dated 1st January 2020 is set aside and proceedings are restored to the stage of issuance of show cause notice - Petitioner to appear before the State Tax Officer as on the date specified by the State Tax Officer - if the Petitioner is entitled to in law to take steps to file returns, it is always open to the Petitioner to do so: High Court [para 5 to 8]
- Petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-383-HC-CHHATTISGARH-GST
Mangal Commercial Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Writ petitioners have filed review petitions contending that there are some inadvertent errors in the common judgment dated 20.11.2019 passed by the Court.
Held: Review Petitioners have never pleaded in the review petitions that they had made any further contentions with reference to the initial challenge raised against Annexure P/1 Circular or as to the plurality of the Proper Officers appointed throughout the country when the cases were listed and heard by this Court either on 22.10.2019 or on 06.11.2019 - In fact, they were only seeking for apology of the Court, expressing regrets for not bringing the correct position (with reference to the Corrigendum Notification dated 29.07.2019) to the notice of this Court and to drop further action, if any - It is quite evident that the attempt of the Review Petitioners is only to have a "re-hearing" of the matter, which is not permissible in exercise of the power of review - The 'review power' can be invoked only when there is any 'error apparent on the face of record' and it is not a substitute for appeal as made clear by the Apex Court - because of non-bringing of the 'Corrigendum Notification' dated 29.07.2019 to the notice of this Court and in making incorrect submissions, much of the Court's time has already been wasted by the Petitioners, which could have been utilised for other fruitful purposes - Now, the Review Petitioners virtually want to have a 're-hearing' - Such course and conduct of the Review Petitioners cannot but be deprecated - Review petitions are dismissed - Bench reluctantly refrains from imposing any cost upon the Review Petitioners: High Court [para 10 to 12]
- Petitions dismissed: CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-382-HC-MAD-GST
Refex Industries Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CE
GST - On a reference, the third Judge had by order dated 19th December 2019 - 2020-TIOL-358-HC-MAD-GST held that though the liability fastened on the assessee to pay interest is an automatic liability, quantification of such liability certainly needs an arithmetical exercise after considering the objections if any, raised by the assessee - Petitioner contends that Section 50 that provides for levy of interest on belated payments would apply only to payments of tax by cash, belatedly, and would not stand triggered in the case of available ITC, since such ITC represents credit due to an assessee by the Department held as such.
Held: Specific question for resolution is as to whether in a case such as the present, where credit is due to an assessee, payment by way of adjustment can still be termed 'belated' or 'delayed' - The use of the word 'delayed' connotes a situation of deprival, where the State has been deprived of the funds representing tax component till such time the Return is filed accompanied by the remittance of tax - The availability of ITC runs counter to this, as it connotes the enrichment of the State, to this extent - Thus, Section 50 which is specifically intended to apply to a state of deprival cannot apply in a situation where the State is possessed of sufficient funds to the credit of the assessee - In my considered view, the proper application of Section 50 is one where interest is levied on a belated cash payment but not on ITC available all the while with the Department to the credit of the assessee, the latter being available with the Department is, neither belated nor delayed - argument that ITC is liable to be reversed if it is found to have been erroneously claimed, and that it may be invalidated in some situations, does not militate with my conclusion - availment and utilization of ITC are two separate events - Credit will be valid till such time it is invalidated by recourse to the mechanisms provided under the Statute and Rules - proviso inserted to Section 50(1) seeks to correct an anomaly in the provision as it existed prior to such insertion - same is to be read as clarificatory and operative retrospectively - Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned notices are set aside: High Court [para 12, 13, 15, 17]
- Petitions allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-381-HC-MAD-GST
Samrajyaa and Company Vs DY CGST & CE
GST - Petitioner has assailed the order dated 19.09.2019 conveying to him the decision of the IT Grievances Redressal Committee not to permit it to file a TRAN-1 in the absence of any evidence of technical/system error.
Held: One cannot lose sight of the difficulties faced by assessees in transitioning into the new medium/procedure set out under the GST regime as this is common and public knowledge - In view of the decisions in Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 2019-TIOL-2519-HC-P&H-GST , The Tyre Plaza - 2019-TIOL-1902-HC-DEL-GST and Siddarth Enterprises - 2019-TIOL-2068-HC-AHM-GST it is clear that (i) the era of GST is in a nascent stage and both the Department as well as assessees are still learning the ropes (ii) a rigid view should thus not be taken in matters involving procedural requirements such as availment of credit; (iii) it is common knowledge that assessees pan India are facing difficulties in accessing the system and uploading Forms to seek transition of credit, and (iv) three Division Benches have taken the view that the time lines set out for transition of credit cannot be very firmly enforced in so far as they are not mandatory - petitioner in this case, without it being a precedent in other cases, should be permitted to upload TRAN-1 declaration and avail of transition of credit - This is also for the reason that the availment of credit by an assessee is distinct from utilization of the same, the latter being a matter of assessment - Writ Petition disposed of: High Court [para 5 to 8]
- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-365-HC-AHM-GST
Sanjay Trading Company Vs State Of Gujarat
GST - Writ applicant availed the benefit of the interim order passed by this Court and got the vehicle, along with the goods released on payment of the tax amount - The proceedings, as on date, are at the stage of show cause notice, under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 - It shall be open for the writ applicant to point out to the recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of Synergy Fertichem Pvt.Ltd = 2019-TIOL-2950-HC-AHM-GST , paragraphs 99 to 104 to make good his case that the show cause notice, issued in Form GST-MOV-10, deserves to be discharged - Writ application disposed of: High Court [para 4 to 7]
- Application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-364-HC-AHM-GST
Swaminarayan Traders Vs State Tax Officer
GST - Writ applicant availed the benefit of the interim order passed by this Court and got the vehicle, along with the goods released on payment of the tax amount - The proceedings, as on date, are at the stage of show cause notice, under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 - It shall be open for the writ applicant to point out to the recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of Synergy Fertichem Pvt.Ltd = 2019-TIOL-2950-HC-AHM-GST, paragraphs 99 to 104 to make good his case that the show cause notice, issued in Form GST-MOV-10, deserves to be discharged - Writ application disposed of: High Court [para 5 to 8]
- Application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-363-HC-AHM-GST
Jai Jawan Jai Kisan Suppliers Vs State Of Gujarat
GST - By an ad-interim order, Court directed the goods to be released upon the writ-applicant depositing an amount of Rs.2,08,250/- - accordingly, applicant availed the benefit of an interim-order and got the goods released on payment of the requisite amount - Bench is now called upon to adjudicate the legality and validity of the order passed by the authority in the Form GST MOV-11 - Two grounds have been raised by the department for the purpose of confiscation of the goods, the first is, that the e-way bill was not generated, and the second is, that it was undervalued - In what circumstances the authority would be justified to invoke Section 130 of the Act for the purpose of confiscation is now explained in detail (in paragraphs 99 to 104) by this Court in the case of Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd = 2019-TIOL-2950-HC-AHM-GST - In view of the aforesaid, this Writ-Application is allowed in part - The impugned order of confiscation in Form GST MOV-11 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent No.2 for fresh consideration so far as the issue of confiscation is concerned - While considering the issue afresh, the respondent No.2 shall bear in mind the principles laid down in the cited decision - Writ application disposed of: High Court [para 6, 8, 10]
- Application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
AAAR CASES
2020-TIOL-12-AAAR-GST
Pattabi Enterprises
GST - AAR had held that supply of access cards and similar material printed by the applicant with the contents supplied by the recipient of supply are classifiable under SAC 9989 (and not under HSN 4901 1020) as supply of service and liable to tax under 9% CGST and 9% KGST and 18% IGST - appeal before the Appellate authority.
Held: Appellant is supplying "Access Cards" to their customer M/s Trilok Security Systems India P Ltd. who provide Mass Queue Management System services at various pilgrim destinations - Access cards are given to the pilgrims free of cost and they contain the pilgrims's digital photo and thumb impression along with information regarding distance to temple, precaution to be taken by pilgrims who are old, sick, physically weak and also first aid centre details etc. - activity undertaken by the appellant is one which brings into existence a distinct item i.e. " Access Card" which is used by the recipient for distribution amongst pilgrims - printing is an activity which is ancillary to the emergence of the access card- resultant product is, therefore, a product of the printing industry - Authority is, therefore, of the opinion that the contents of paragraph 5 of the CBIC Circular 11/11/2017-GST dated 20.10.2017 would apply and hence the printing and supply of Access cards by the appellant is a supply of goods - Ruling given by the AAR is, therefore, set aside - insofar as classification is concerned, the access cards being printed cards in single sheets are classifiable under sub-heading 4901 1020 under the category of ‘pamphlets, booklets, brochures, leaflets and similar printed matter'; are covered under entry Sl. no. 201 of Schedule I of 1/2017-CTR and attracts CGST of 2.5%: AAAR
- Appeal allowed: AAAR
NAA CASE
2020-TIOL-04-NAA-GST
Director General Of Anti-Profiteering Vs Ramaprastha Promoter And Developer Pvt Ltd
GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Applicant alleges profiteering by the respondent in respect of purchase of flat in the respondent's project "Edge Towers", Haryana - Applicant contends that the respondent did not pass on the benefit of Input Tax Credit to him by way of commensurate reduction in the price.
Held: Contention of the respondent that the State level Screening Committee as well as the Standing Committee had not recorded any satisfaction/reasons which could reflect that he (respondent) had acted in contravention of s.171 of the Act and Rules thereunder and, therefore, the same was in violation of the principles of natural justice, is untenable because in terms of rule 128 of the Rules, 2017, the Standing Committee and the Screening Committee is required to only prima facie examine the allegations of profiteering which are to be investigated in detail by the DGAP u/r 129(1) of the Rules - Methodology and Procedure has been notified by the Authority vide notification dated 28.03.2018 u/r 126 - on the issue of reduction in the tax rate, it is apparent from the DGAP report that there has not been any reduction in the tax rate in the post GST period hence the only issue to be examined is whether there was any net benefit of ITC with the introduction of GST - it is revealed from the report of the DGAP that the ITC as a percentage of the turnover that was available to the respondent during the pre-GST period (April 2016 to June 2017) was 1.72% and during the post-GST period (July 2017 to December 2018) it was 2.64% and which confirms that post-GST, the respondent has benefited from additional ITC to the tune of 0.92% of his turnover and the same is required to be passed on to the applicant and other flat buyers - DGAP has calculated the amount of ITC benefit to be passed on to all the flat buyers as Rs.35,28,744/- and which the respondent has himself admitted as correct - above amount that has been profiteered shall be refunded along with interest @18% - Applicant has, along with his written submissions, enclosed sample credit notes and cheques as evidence to establish his claim of having passed on the benefit amounting to Rs.35,28,744/- along with interest thereon amounting to Rs.7,32,220/- to the 397 homebuyers - DGAP is directed to verify the above Passing of ITC benefit and submit a report within three months - For contravention of the provisions of s.171(1) of the Act, Penalty is imposable u/s 171(3A) of the Act read with rule 133(3)(d) of the Rules and accordingly a SCN is required to be issued to the respondent - in terms of rule 136 of the CGST Rules, the Authority directs the jurisdictional Commissioners of CGST/SGST, Haryana to monitor the order under the supervision of DGAP by ensuring that the amount profiteered is passed on to all the eligible buyers - compliance report to be submitted within four months - in line with the provisions of s.171(2) of the Act and as per the amended rule 133(5)(a), Authority directs the DGAP to further examine all the other projects of the respondent for possible violations of the provisions of s.171 of the Act and to submit his report as per rule 133(5)(b) of the Rules since there are adequate reasons to believe that the respondent may not have passed on the benefit of ITC to his recipients in terms of s.171(1) of the Act in the same manner as in the present project "Edge Towers" - Application allowed: NAA
- Application allowed: NAA
ARTICLES
Fallout of Supreme Court Judgment in ITC Case
'Interest' is interesting
Striking down ST levy on Ocean Freight - Whether a mirage or a true relief?
Section 50 amendment - prospective or retrospective, is the Question
GST on ocean freight: Who bears the brunt?
Transfer pricing - Applicability when no income can possibly arise
GST - An agenda for reforms - Part - 73 - Charting strategy to cut delay in legislating under GST
Interest on delayed filing of GST return: On gross or net tax liability?
A scheme on the prowl - MOOWR(No.2), 2019 - A replacement to many EP Schemes
GST Law amendments - The Saga of Contrasting Principles Continues
Co-operative Societies: Budget Analysis
JEST GST by Vijay Kumar
Not a Penny More
The Cob(Web) by Shailendra Kumar
GST - Sec 50 Imbroglio - CBIC, GSTN & Taxpayers - All three to be blamed!
