2021-TIOL-208-HC-AHM-GST
Roshani Traders Vs State of Gujarat
GST - Detenetion of goods - The writ application was filed at the stage of MOV-10 and coordinate Bench of this Court thought fit to pass the order releasing the detained goods together for the conveyance - The matter is still at the stage of adjudication of SCN issued in MOV-10 - The writ applicant is expected now to appear before the authority concerned and participate in the confiscation proceedings - It shall be open for writ applicant to file his reply, if not yet filed, and make submissions for the purpose of getting the notice in MOV-10 discharged - The authority concerned shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law bearing in mind the principle of law explained by this Court in case of Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd. 2019-TIOL-546-HC-AHM-GST - Court is not expressing any opinion on merits: HC
- Writ application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-207-HC-AHM-GST
Regal Aluminium Company Vs State of Gujarat
GST - Provisional release - The applicant submits that since the final order of confiscation in form of GST MOV-11 has been passed, they would challenge the same by preferring the appeal before appellate authority under Section 107 of the Act - However, he makes a request that atleast the goods and the vehicle may be ordered to be released on depositing of amount towards the tax, penalty and fine in lieu of the confiscation - According to him, the total amount comes around Rs. 19 lac and that the amount of Rs. 2.30 lac towards the tax has already been deposited - As the court is relegating writ-applicants to avail an alternative remedy of preferring a statutory appeal against the final order of confiscation, the request for provisional release of goods and the vehicle pending final disposal of the appeal also should be made before appellate authority - If any such application is filed, then the appellate authority shall take it out for hearing and may consider releasing the goods and the vehicle on the writ-applicants depositing the amount towards the penalty and fine in lieu of the confiscation: HC
- Writ application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-206-HC-AHM-GST
J Core International Vs Asstt CCGST
GST - The subject matter of challenge is to the order of provisional attachment of Bank Account in the Form GST DRC-22 - This Writ Application need not be adjudicated on merits as the impugned order of provisional adjudication has outlived its statutory life - As per Section 83 of the Act, other provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after the expiry of period of one year from the date of order made under sub-section (1) - The impugned order is dated 24.10.2019 - The period of one year expired way back in October 2020 - It can be said that there is no provisional attachment of Bank Account in existence or in operation as on date - The Axis Bank shall permit the applicant to now operate his Bank Account: HC
- Writ Application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-205-HC-P&H-GST
Himanshu Infraprojects Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST
GST - The petitioner has challenged an order by which his bank account was attached and prayed for refund of Rs. 63.00 lakhs which as per him was got deposited by him without there being any SCN or demand - As per the respondents, the order itself reveals that it was passed with the consent of Commissioner - However, this would not be a complete answer because under Rule 159 a person whose property has been provisionally attached can file objections and if the written order of Commissioner is not communicated to him he would not be in a position to know what are the reasons which the Commissioner had, to arrive at the conclusion that it was in the interest of the Revenue to attach the property - If what is stated by respondent is accepted then such a person would never have the benefit of reasons which weighed with Commissioner and consequently not be able to file any effective objection - Resultantly, the order of attachment has to go and is consequently set aside - As regards the second plea of refund, it is the case of respondents that the amount was voluntarily deposited by petitioner and now a SCN has been sent demanding more duty - The petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench Judgment in Concepts Global Impex 2018-TIOL-2993-HC-P&H-CUS in that case also there was an identical fact situation where that person had deposited certain amount of money which as per him were taken by coercion but which as per the respondents was deposited voluntarily - However, at the time of deposit, neither any demand or SCN was pending and just like in the present case when that writ petition came up for hearing a SCN had already been issued - This Court however directed the refund of the amount after retaining 10% of duty demanded - The respondents has accepted that this judgment is fully applicable but has relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in Ambay Industrial Corporations 2019-TIOL-2858-HC-DEL-CUS wherein it is held that in such a case the aggrieved person can always file a suit for recovery - The judgment of Division Bench of this Court would be binding on this Bench as against the judgment of another High Court - Consequently, the prayer for refund is disposed of in the same terms as in the aforementioned case of Concepts Global Impex : HC
- Writ application disposed of: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-204-HC-AHM-GST
Hariom Traders Vs State Of Gujarat
GST - The present matter is at the stage of MOV-GST 10 issued under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Thus, the writ applicant has been issued with the show-cause notice under Section 130 of the Act, 2017 calling upon him to show cause as to why the goods and conveyance should not be confiscated for the contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules as alleged in MOV 10.
Held - The Court is not inclined to interfere in the petition at this point of time - The petitioner is expected to file reply to SCN and appear before the authority in confiscation proceedings - The authority concerned is directed to expeditiously consider the application filed u/s 67(6) for provisional release of the goods and the conveyance and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of this order is presented before the authority - The perishable nature of the subject goods be kept in mind - The confiscation proceedings also should be concluded with an appropriate order latest by 28.02.2021. The writ applicant shall be given an adequate opportunity of hearing in the confiscation proceedings: HC
- Writ petition disposed of : GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-203-HC-DEL-GST
Electro Devices Pvt Ltd Vs Additional Director General Directorate General of GST Intelligence
GST - The petitioner's counsel claimed to have filed d a rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit of the Revenue but the same has not come on record - The present petition had been filed to contest provisional attachment u/s 83 of the CGST Act, of certain bank accounts held by the petitioner - It was also claimed that the attachment was for one year period, for which alone the said attachment, under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act can operate/have effect, has expired - Hence it was argued that the provisional attachment of the bank accounts impugned in this petition has lapsed and the Revenue is bound under Section 83(2) to issue instructions to the banks, of lapsing of the attachment.
Held - Even if the Revenue, on or before 29th January, 2021 do not issue the instructions as to the banks or do not serve on the petitioner through advocate any other order attaching the said bank accounts, the attachment of the relevant bank accounts shall stand quashed and the banks shall allow the petitioner to, after 29th January, 2021, operate the accounts: HC
- Writ petition allowed : DELHI HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-202-HC-AHM-GST
Flair Writing Industries Ltd Vs UoI
GST - The petitioner company is engaged in manufacture of wide range of writing instruments like Ball Pens, Gel Pens, Fountain Pens - The present petition was filed to contest the constitutional validity of Section 50 of the CGST Act - It is argued by the petitioner that the first proviso is manifestly arbitrary as its create differently treatment between two classes of persons (i) who self-assessed payment of tax after duly filing of the tax returns pursuant to the investigation and (ii) who fails to file a return in time and pays tax on account of delayed in filing of return in terms of Section 39(1) of the CGST Act - Thus, the writ applicant is aggrieved by its exclusion from the proviso to Section 50(1) of the Act - The petitioner is also aggrieved by the levy of interest on the GST paid by him through the electronic credit ledger on account of short payment of tax - This according to the petitioner is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Held - Notice be issued to the respondents: HC
- Notice issued : GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-201-HC-AHM-GST
Formative Fashions Pvt Ltd Vs State of Gujarat
GST - The petitioner company was served SCN u/s 74 of the SGST Act, 2017 in Form GST DRC-01 dated 07/10/2020 - Duty demand was raised with interest & penalty - As proceedings u/s 74 of the Act came to be initiated, an order of provisional attachment of the immovable properties as well as the cash credit account of the petitioner, was passed - Hence the present petition.
Held - The cash credit account of the petitioner should not have been ordered to be provisionally attached under Section-83 of the SGST Act, 2017 - The position of law in this regard is now well-settled - No comments on the provisional attachment of the immovable properties - However the provisional attachment of the cash credit account cannot continue and the same is hereby lifted - Ultimately, if the entire liability as sought to be fasten is discharged by the petitioner, then the authority may continue passing appropriate orders lifting the provisional attachment of the immovable properties also: HC
- Writ petition disposed of : GUJARAT HIGH COURT
