TOP NEWS
GST - Govt garners Rs 97600 Crore for Feb month; 76.5 lakh GSTR-3B filed
GST CASES
HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-713-HC-AHM-GST
RJ Enterprise Vs State Of Gujarat
GST - Petitioner inter alia seeks quashing and setting aside of order dated 24.09.2018 provisionally attaching u/s 83 of the Act, the bank account held with HDFC Bank Ltd.
Held: Bench may not adjudicate this writ application on merits as the impugned order has outlived its statutory life inasmuch as the order is dated 24 th September 2018 and in terms of section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, provisional attachment would cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order made under Sub-section (1) - Counsel for Revenue makes a statement that the order of provisional attachment has not been renewed or no fresh order has been passed - In such circumstances, as on date, it cannot be said that the account of the writ-applicant is under any attachment - HDFC Bank Ltd., Gondal shall permit the writ applicant to operate his account - Writ application disposed of: High Court [para 6, 8, 10, 11]
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-712-HC-KOL-GST
Bengal Hammer Industries Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner has prayed for allowing them to file/upload TRAN-1 and/or revised TRAN-1 form - Issue has been resolved by an order passed by this Court on March 4, 2020 in WP 17234(W) of 2019 - 2020-TIOL-561-HC-KOL-GST along with several other writ petitions - In the light of the same, GSTN authorities are directed to open the portal for the petitioners till 31 March 2020 - Petition is disposed of: High Court
- Petition disposed of: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-711-HC-AHM-GST
Bhawani Textiles Vs Additional Director General
GST - Petitioner prays for holding the proceedings initiated by the respondent no. 4 and 6 as bad and without authority of law and, therefore, liable to be quashed - It appears that a Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, DGGI, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad carried out the search under Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017 on 03.04.2019 at the office premises of the writ applicant situated at the Udhana Udhyog Nagar, Udhana, Surat in the presence of two panch witnesses - Later, a summon dated 29.01.2020 came to be issued u/s 70(1) of the Act by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax and the applicant replied to the said summon on 07.02.2020 by addressing a letter to the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Enforcement Div-9, Bhavnagar by stating that all the original books of accounts and documents had already been seized by DGGI, Ahmedabad on 03.04.2019 and, therefore, the case be transferred to DGGI, Ahmedabad - a similar reply was also given to another summon dated 15.02.2020 received from DGGI, Surat Zonal - the grievance of the writ applicant is that while the proceedings came to be initiated by the DGGI, AZU, Ahmedabad, the other authorities should not interfere with such proceedings already initiated.
Held: It appears that by way of instructions LETTER D.O.F.NO.CBEC/20/43/01/2017-GST(PT), DATED 5-10-2018 , it is clarified that if an officer of the Central tax authority initiates intelligence based enforcement action against a taxpayer administratively assigned to the State tax authority, the officers of the Central tax authority would not transfer the said case to its State tax counterpart and would themselves take the case to its logical conclusions - In the case on hand, there is nothing on record to indicate that the officer of the Central tax authority has transferred the case of the writ applicant to any other authority of the State - However, it appears that although the action was undertaken under Section 67 of the Act by the DGGI, AZU, yet the two summons came to be issued, one by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax and another by the DGGI, Surat - Bench disposes of this writ application with a direction to the DGGI, AZU, Ahmedabad to look into the matter and ensure that no undue harassment is caused to the writ applicant by different authorities on the same subject matter - It is also clarified that the Bench has otherwise not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case - Writ application disposed of: High Court [para 6, 7]
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-710-HC-AHM-GST
Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner has sought for quashing of notification 8/2017-ITR and Entry no. 10 of 10/2017-ITR by declaring that the same lacks legislative competency; is ultra vires the IGST Act and hence unconstitutional.
Held: Issues raised in the present writ-application have now been settled by the judgment of this Court dated 23rd January, 2020, passed in the Special Civil Application No.726 of 2018 and allied petitions - 2020-TIOL-164-HC-AHM-GST, paragraph Nos. 253, 254 and 255 of the judgment refers - In view of the above, no further adjudication is required in this matter - With regard to the other ancillary reliefs prayed for, it shall be open for the writ-applicant to approach the department concerned and seek appropriate orders - Petition stands disposed of: High Court [para 2 to 4]
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-709-HC-AHM-GST
AT Trading Company Vs State Of Gujarat
GST - Petitioner had sought direction/order for quashing and setting aside the detention order and release of goods and vehicle seized by respondent - an ad interim order passed by the Court was availed and the goods and the conveyance ultimately came to be released upon payment of the requisite amount towards the tax and penalty - notice issued by the State Tax Department to the writ applicant in Form GST MOV-10 calls upon the writ applicant to show cause as to why the goods and the conveyance should not be confiscated under Section 130 of the Act - only question that falls for consideration is whether Court should quash the impugned show cause notice?
Held: In Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat - 2019-TIOL-2950-HC-AHM-GST, Court had the occasion to explain the provisions of Sections 129 and 130 of the Act in details - Bench is of the view that the writ applicant should make his case good before the authority concerned and point out the principle explained by this Court in the aforesaid decision; it shall also be open for the writ applicant to file a detailed reply and take all legal grounds available to him for the purpose of getting notice discharged - writ application disposed of with a direction to the authority concerned to hear the writ applicant and an appropriate order be passed in accordance with law within a period of four weeks: High Court [para 12 to 14]
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-703-HC-AHM-GST
Vishnu Aroma Pouching Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - It is manifest that despite the fact that the petitioner had approached them at the earliest point of time, the respondent authorities maintained silence for a considerable period of time and did not provide remedial measures till directed by this court - The errors in uploading the return were not on account of any fault on the part of the petitioner but on account of error in the system - In these circumstances, it would be unreasonable and inequitable on the part of the respondents to saddle the petitioner with interest on the amount of tax payable for August 2017, despite the fact that the petitioner had discharged its tax liability for such period well within time - Petitioner had duly discharged the tax liability of August, 2017 within the period prescribed therefor; however, it was only on account of technical glitches in the System that the amount of tax paid by the petitioner for August 2017 had not been credited to the Government account - Interests of justice would best be served if the declaration submitted by the petitioner in October, 2019 along with the return of September, 2019 is treated as discharge of the petitioner's tax liability of August, 2017 within the period stipulated under the GST laws - Consequently, the petitioner would not be liable to pay any interest on such tax amount for the period from 21.9.2017 to October, 2019 - It is held that the declaration submitted by the petitioner in October, 2019 along with the return of September, 2019 shall be treated as the petitioner having discharged its tax liability of August, 2017 within the period stipulated under the GST laws - The petitioner shall not be liable to pay any interest on such tax amount for the period from 21.9.2017 to October, 2019 - Petition allowed: High Court [para 12, 14, 15]
- Petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-702-HC-AHM-GST
Real Prince Spintex Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - It is the case of the writ-applicants that from July, 2017 onwards till the letter of undertaking was obtained, they had exported goods on payment of the IGST - According to the writ applicants, under a misconception of law, they selected the option of export ‘without payment of tax' while filing the shipping bills though the writ applicants, at the relevant point of time, had no letter of undertaking, and simultaneously, also claimed higher rate of duty drawback under the Customs Act, 1962 - It is the case of the writ-applicants that since the clearing and forwarding agent had erroneously selected the option of export without payment of tax while filing the shipping bill, the amount of the IGST paid was shown as 'Nil' in the shipping bill - It is in such circumstances, the customs authorities denied to grant refund of the IGST paid on exports by the writ-applicants - In spite of the repeated requests, the refund of the IGST paid on the exports, during the period between July and September, 2017 has not been granted, therefore, the present Civil Application - Writ-applicants submitted that the issue raised is no longer res-integra in view of the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Amit Cotton Industries - 2019-TIOL-1443-HC-AHM-GST - it is held therein that that the refund of the IGST paid on the exports cannot be denied on the ground that the higher rate of duty drawback is claimed.
Held: In view of the aforesaid decision of the High Court, no further adjudication is necessary in the present case - Writ Application succeeds and is hereby allowed - The respondents are directed to immediately sanction the refund of the IGST paid with regard to the exported goods, i.e. "zero rated supplies", with 7% simple interest from the date of shipping bill till the date of actual refund - The refund shall be granted after deducting the differential amount of the duty drawback for the period between July and September, 2017: High Court [para 8 to 10]
- Application allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-701-HC-AHM-GST
UoI Vs Saraf Natural Stone
GST - Interest on Delayed refunds - Court had directed the applicants (UOI) to pay simple interest on the delayed payment @ 9% per annum - By the present application, the applicants seek review of Court's order to the limited extent that the directions could not have been for making payment @ 9% per annum but, in fact, it should have been @ 6% per annum as provided under Section 56 of the CGST Act.
Held: Bench is of the view that no case is made out for review of the order passed by this Court dated 10.07.2019 = 2019-TIOL-1587-HC-AHM-GST - Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court thought fit to award interest @ 9% per annum - application is, therefore, rejected: High Court
- Application rejected: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-700-HC-AHM-GST
Siddhbali Stone Gallery 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 and the proceedings, as on date, are at the stage of show cause notice, u/s 129 of the CGST Act and which proceedings shall go ahead in accordance with law - It shall be open for the writ applicant to point out the pronouncement of this Court in the case of Synergy Fertichem Pvt. - 2019-TIOL-546-HC-AHM-GST and in particular rely on the observations made by this Court in paragraph Nos.99 to 104 of the said judgment - It is now for the applicant to make good his case that the show cause notice, issued in GSTMOV- 6, deserves to be discharged – Petition disposed of: High Court [para 5 to 7]
- Petition disposed of:GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-694-HC-AHM-GST
Badal Shambhubhai Shah Vs Directorate General Of GST
GST - Short question that arises for consideration is whether after the expiry of period of one year from the date of passing of the provisional attachment order, under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 , the attachment over the bank account of the petitioner can continue? - Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, in the peculiar facts of the case, submitted that the petitioner was arrested and on condition of deposit of Rs.50 Lakhs, bail was granted to the petitioner by the trial Court; that petitioner has challenged such condition of granting bail before this Court for modification and Criminal Misc. Application No.3070 of 2019 is pending; that keeping in mind the interest of Revenue, appropriate order may be passed.
Held: Provision of Sub-section (2) of Section 83 of the Act, 2017 is very clear in this regard - No attachment over the bank account can continue after the period of one year from the date of passing of the order under Section 83 of the Act, 2017, unless such order is renewed or fresh order is passed by the authority - In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, the respondent Nos.3 and 4-Banks are directed to lift the attachment over the accounts of the petitioner, placed by the respondent No.1, by virtue of order dated 10.01.2019 passed under Section 83 of the Act, 2017 - The petitioner shall handover original receipt of Fixed Deposit of Rs.50 Lakhs to be issued in his name to the respondent subject to outcome of Criminal Misc. Application No.3070 of 2019 - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 4, 9]
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-693-HC-AHM-GST
Darsh Pharmachem Pvt Ltd Vs SUPERINTENDENT CGST
GST - Writ applicant tried to upload Form TRAN-1 for the purpose of claiming the ITC credit on-line - However on account of the technical glitches, the TRAN-1 was not accepted by the GST common portal - petition filed seeking directions to the respondent.
Held: Having heard the parties and having gone through the materials on record, Bench is of the view that the writ-applicant is entitled to seek the benefit of the Order No.01/2020-GST issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance dated 7th February 2020 - Bench directs direct the respondent No.2 to permit the writ-applicant to file form in TRAN-1 - exercise to be undertaken and completed within two weeks - petition disposed of: High Court [para 7 to 9]
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-692-HC-AHM-GST
Dharma Lubes Pvt Ltd 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 and the proceedings, as on date, are at the stage of show cause notice, u/s 129 of the CGST Act and which proceedings shall go ahead in accordance with law - It shall be open for the writ applicant to point out the pronouncement of this Court in the case of Synergy Fertichem Pvt. - 2019-TIOL-546-HC-AHM-GST and in particular rely on the observations made by this Court in paragraph Nos.99 to 104 of the said judgment - It is now for the applicant to make good his case that the show cause notice, issued in GSTMOV- 6, deserves to be discharged – Petition disposed of: High Court [para 5 to 7]
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-691-HC-AHM-GST
Gokul Agro Resources Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Court vide judgement and order passed in the case of Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd = 2020-TIOL-164-HC-AHM-GST declared the Entry No.10 of the Notification No.10/2017 -Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 as ultra vires Section 5(3) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as well as Article 14 of the Constitution of India - applicant submits that they had deposited a particular amount of IGST and as the Notification has been struck down, they are entitled to refund of the said amount of IGST - Applicant seeks a writ from the High Court to the authority for the purpose of refund.
Held: Since the Notification has been struck down as ultra vires , as a consequence of the same, the writ applicant seeks refund of the amount paid towards the IGST - However, for this purpose, the writ applicant will have to prefer an appropriate application addressed to the competent authority - If any such application is preferred for the refund of the amount, the authority concerned shall immediately look into the same and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law keeping in mind the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Mohit Minerals (supra) - The competent authority shall not raise any technical issue with regard to the claim for refund of the IGST amount - exercise is to be undertaken within a period of four weeks - application stands disposed of: High Court [para 6, 7]
- Application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-690-HC-AHM-GST
Kanal Enterprise Vs State Of Gujarat
GST - Writ applicant pointed out that by virtue of the ad-interim relief granted, the attachment of the Bank account came to be lifted, however, the attachment over the goods continued to operate by virtue of the impugned order passed under Section 83 of the Act - The short point falling for consideration by the Bench is whether the impugned order of attachment of property under Section 83 of the Act could have been passed on the ground of proceedings instituted under Section 71(1) of the Act.
Held: A plain reading of Section 83 of the Act would indicate that the powers can be invoked during the pendency of proceedings under Sections 62, 63, 64, 67, 73 and 74 of the Act - There is no power vested in the authorities to invoke the provisions of Section 83 during the pendency of the proceedings instituted under Section 71(1) of the Act - In fact, there cannot be any proceedings, which could be instituted under Section 71 of the Act inasmuch as Section 71 of the Act talks about access to the business premises - In such circumstances, the impugned order of attachment under Section 83 of the Act is hereby quashed and set aside - Application stands disposed of: High Court [para 5 to 7]
- Application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-689-HC-KERALA-GST
Paxal Chemical Industry Pvt Ltd Vs Assistant State Tax Officer
GST - Writ Petition is directed against the action initiated by the respondents detaining the consignments covered by invoices - vehicle was intercepted and it was found that the documents tendered by the driver of the transportation of the consignments from Gujarat to Kollam were defective, resulting into detention order - Petitioner submits the same to be a human error as E-Way bill reflected entry of Kollam - Counsel for respondent submitted that opening line of the Sec.129 of the Goods and Services Tax Act states that in case of any violation, goods are liable to be detained.
Held: Bench is of the view that the court would not be an appropriate authority to adjudicate the controversy to either of the human error or intentional or willful; that it would be the domain of the adjudicating authority - For the time being, the goods detained can be released, subject to the compliance of conditions referred to in Sec.129(1) of the Act and Rule 43 of 2017 - In case the petitioner furnishes the bank guarantee along with other charges, as per the provisions of Sec.129, on deposit of the requisite Bank Guarantee, the goods and the vehicle detained are ordered to be released; subject to the outcome of the controversy by adjudicating authority - It is made clear that the respondents will not en-cash the bank guarantee till the controversy involved is adjudicated by the concerned authority - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 5]
- Petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-681-HC-AHM-GST
UoI Vs Willowood Chemicals Pvt Ltd
GST - Interest on Delayed refunds - Court had directed the applicants (UOI) to pay simple interest on the delayed payment @ 9% per annum - By the present application, the applicants seek review of Court's order to the limited extent that the directions could not have been for making payment @ 9% per annum but, in fact, it should have been @ 6% per annum as provided under Section 56 of the CGST Act.
Held: Bench is of the view that no case is made out for review of the order passed by this Court dated 10.07.2019 = 2019-TIOL-1588-HC-AHM-GST - Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court thought fit to award interest @ 9% per annum - application is, therefore, rejected: High Court
- Application rejected: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-680-HC-AHM-GST
Siddhi Developers Vs UoI
GST - According to the petitioner, they tried to upload form GST TRAN-1 to claim credit amounting to Rs.1,15,35,563/- for their firm towards service tax credit, however, due to technical glitches in the GST portal, the petitioner could not file / upload the form GST TRAN-1 - case of the petitioner was not considered by the competent authority so as to enable the petitioner to claim credit of CENVAT in view of transitional provisions of Section 140 of the Act, 2017, hence the petition.
Held: In view of the settled legal position as stated in M/s Siddharth Enterprises - 2019-TIOL-2068-HC-AHM-GST, the petitioner is entitled to claim credit of CENVAT as well as service tax as on 30th June 2017 as per the provisions under Section 140(1) of the Act, 2017 read with Rule 117 of the Rules 2017 - Respondent No.4, who is the jurisdictional officer, is directed to verify the claim of credit of CENVAT and service tax of the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to carry forward by filing / uploading form GST TRAN-1 on GST portal - respondent No.4 shall complete the exercise of verification and permit the petitioner to upload the form GST TRAN-1 within a period of two weeks so that the petitioner can upload the form GST TRAN-1 on or before 31st March 2020 - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 10, 11, 13]
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-679-HC-AHM-GST
RSK Industries Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner provided all the details in Column 5(a) of Form GST TRAN-1 correctly except CENVAT Credit admissible as Input Tax Credit (ITC), wherein, due to inadvertence, the petitioner filled in "ZERO" instead of amount of the balance CENVAT Credit/carried forward CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs.8,58,373/- pertaining to CENVAT Credit of excise duty and Rs.5,97,397/- pertaining to the input tax credit of service tax - petitioner therefore, noticing that an error had crept in at the time of filing of Form GST TRAN-1 dated 15.12.2017, attempted to file revised Form GST TRAN-1, however, the petitioner could not upload such Form as revise button/link was not reflected on the screen of the common portal, when the petitioner tried to log in to revise Form GST TRAN-1 - The petitioner, therefore, could not correct the mistakes committed by it, at the time of filing of original Form GST TRAN-1 - petitioner made representations to various authorities - case of the petitioner was considered during the 4th meeting of IT Grievance Redressal Committee held on 12.02.2019 and their representation was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had successfully filed Form GST TRAN-1 and there was no technical error was found.
Held: It is not in dispute that the petitioner is entitled to carry forward CENVAT/Input Tax Credit to the tune of Rs.14,55,770/- as per Form E.R.-1 under the provisions of the Act, 1944 as well as the Act, 2017 - It is also not in dispute that the petitioner uploaded Form GST TRAN-1 erroneously showing "ZERO" balance for CENVAT Credit admissible as Input Tax Credit, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 140 of the Act, 2017 read with rule 117 of Rules, 2017, the petitioner is entitled to carry forward the CENVAT Credit - In the opinion of this Court, the respondents have failed to consider the aspect of the technical glitch to reject the claim of the petitioner on the ground that there was no technical error when the petitioner uploaded the Form GST TRAN-1 without considering the fact that the petitioner could not upload revised Form GST TRAN-1 within the prescribed date of 27.12.2017 - In view of the Order No.01/2020-GST dated 07.02.2020 extending the period for submitting the declaration in the form of GST TRAN-1 till 31st March 2020, the petitioner is also entitled to get one more chance to submit the declaration in Form GST TRAN-1 as the petitioner could not submit the revised Form GST TRAN-1 as the petitioner could not upload the same before the due date of 27.12.2017 on account of technical difficulties on the common portal - respondents are hereby directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for carry forward of Input Tax Credit of Rs.14,55,770/- so as to enable the petitioner to take advantage of the order dated 07.02.2020 to upload the revised Form GST TRAN-1 on or before 31.03.2020 - Such exercise shall be completed within a period of two weeks - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 6, 7, 9, 10, 11]
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-666-HC-AHM-GST
Kambay Aromatics Vs UoI
GST - It appears that the petitioner could not upload the form GST TRAN-1 due to technical glitches and in spite of various representations made by the petitioner, he was not allowed to upload the form GST TRAN-1 - In view of the settled legal position [ M/s Siddharth Enterprises - 2019-TIOL-2068-HC-AHM-GST], the petitioner is entitled to claim credit of CENVAT as well as service tax as on 30th June 2017 as per the provisions under Section 140(1) of the Act, 2017 read with Rule 117 of the Rules 2017 - In such circumstances, respondent No.4, who is the jurisdictional officer, is directed to verify the claim of credit of CENVAT and service tax of the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to carry forward by filing / uploading form GST TRAN-1 on GST portal - respondent No.4 shall complete the exercise of verification and permit the petitioner to upload the form GST TRAN-1 within a period of two weeks so that the petitioner can upload the form GST TRAN-1 on or before 31st March 2020 - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 9 to 11, 13]
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-665-HC-AHM-GST
Topline Switchgear Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner tried to upload the Form GST TRAN-1 as prescribed under Rule 117 of the GST Rules, however, the same could not be uploaded but the petitioner was able to save the form online - In view of the Order No.01/2020 of the GST, the grievance of the petitioner can be redressed, if the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to upload the Form GST TRAN-1 on or before 31st March, 2020 - Moreover, the petitioner is entitled to claim credit of Cenvat as per the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Siddharth Enterprises - 2019-TIOL-2068-HC-AHM-GST, wherein, it is held that the petitioner is entitled to avail the benefit of Cenvat Credit under Section 140(3) of the Act irrespective of time limit prescribed under Rule-117 of the Rules - exercise shall be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of the order - application disposed of: High Court [para 8 to 10]
- Application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-664-HC-AHM-GST
Ratanjyot Steel And Pipes Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - It is the case of the writ applicants that they computed the transitional credit in terms of the then existing sub-section (3) of Section 140 of the IGST Act without claiming the Input Tax Credit pertaining to the stock held beyond 12 months prior to coming into force of the CGST Act, 2017, i.e, for the period prior to 01.07.2016 - pursuant to the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Filco Trade Center Pvt. Ltd. - 2018-TIOL-2861-HC-AHM-GST , the writ applicant was entitled to the credit pertaining to the stock held beyond 12 months from the effective date of 01.07.2017 since clause (iv) of sub-section (3) of section 140 was held to be unconstitutional - they, therefore, made several representations/reminders to the respondent authorities but to no avail, hence the present Civil Application.
Held: Respondents are directed to consider the representation of the writ applicants at the earliest keeping in mind the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Filco Trade Center Pvt. Ltd. (supra) - Such exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks - Applciation disposed of: High Court [para 8, 9]
- Application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-663-HC-AHM-GST
Rohan Dyes And Intermediates Ltd Vs UoI
GST - It appears that the petitioner could not upload the form GST TRAN-1 due to technical glitches and in spite of various representations made by the petitioner, he was not allowed to upload the form GST TRAN-1 - In view of the settled legal position [ M/s Siddharth Enterprises - 2019-TIOL-2068-HC-AHM-GST ], the petitioner is entitled to claim credit of CENVAT as well as service tax as on 30th June 2017 as per the provisions under Section 140(1) of the Act, 2017 read with Rule 117 of the Rules 2017 - In such circumstances, respondent No.4, who is the jurisdictional officer, is directed to verify the claim of credit of CENVAT and service tax of the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to carry forward by filing / uploading form GST TRAN-1 on GST portal - respondent No.4 shall complete the exercise of verification and permit the petitioner to upload the form GST TRAN-1 within a period of two weeks so that the petitioner can upload the form GST TRAN-1 on or before 31st March 2020 - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 9 to 11, 13]
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
AAR CASES
2020-TIOL-62-AAR-GST
Anju Parakh
GST - Applicant had not deposited the requisite fee for seeking advance ruling inasmuch as they had deposited only the SGST fee of Rs.5000/- but not the CGST fee of Rs.5000/- as specified in Circular no. 25/25/2017-GST dated 21.02.2017 and which fact was also brought to the notice of the applicant by letter dated 20.09.2019 - since the applicant failed to comply with the legal procedures as mandated in section 97(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with rules 104(1), 107A of the CGST Rules, 2017, despite being made aware of the same, application cannot be entertained: AAR
- Application rejected: AAR
2020-TIOL-61-AAR-GST
Rajeev Bansal And Sudershan Mittal
GST - Business transfer agreement - Transfer of under-construction project - Transfer of business in question shall be treated as a 'going concern' and is exempted from GST as on date in terms of Sr. no. 2 of 12/2017-CTR: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2020-TIOL-60-AAR-GST
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd
GST - Value of goods supplied within India and billing done in foreign exchange currency shall be determined u/r 34 of CGST Rules and the rate of exchange for imported goods as notified by the Board u/s 14 of the Customs Act shall be applicable to the present case: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2020-TIOL-59-AAR-GST
Ajay Kumar Dabral
GST - Services provided by Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam to applicant is covered under Sr. no. 257 of 11/2017-CTR as ‘Licensing Services for the right to use minerals including its exploration and evaluation' ; classifiable under SAC 997337 attracting same rate of central tax as on supply of like goods (sand, gravel, stone boulder) involving transfer of title in goods i.e. @5% for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
CGST CIRCULAR
circular-cgst-135
GST Refund - CBIC clarifies on accumulated ITC, bunching of claims across FYs and guidelines for claims u/s 54(3)
ARTICLES
SVLDRS, 2019 extensions
GST - An agenda for reforms - Part - 79 -GST relief to industry hit by Covid-19 crisis
COVID-19 and GST Council - Need to prescribe procedure during times of an epidemic/pandemic
Job worked imported goods and their return - the GST implication - Part II
GST - An agenda for reforms - Part - 79 -GST relief to industry hit by Covid-19 crisis
COVID-19 and GST Council - Need to prescribe procedure during times of an epidemic/pandemic
Job worked imported goods and their return - the GST implication - Part II
Fate of CENVAT Credit not carried forward under GST regime
JEST GST by Vijay Kumar
The New Financial Year is here - No April Fool joke
The Cob(Web) by Shailendra Kumar
Lockdown - Down with Hunger - Need for Langar, fiscal too!
