2021-TIOL-284-HC-AHM-GST
Pragati Enterprise Vs State Of Gujarat
GST - Petitioner seeks directions to the respondents to defreeze/detach the Current Bank Account of the petitioner from provisional attachment - Short point falling is whether the respondent No. 2 could have invoked the Section-83 of the Act, 2017 for the purpose of passing an order of provisional attachment or not?
Held: In the absence of any proceedings pending as on date against the writ-applicant under the provisions of the GST Act as referred to under Section-83 of the Act, the order of provisional attachment could not have been passed - Assuming for the moment that something has surfaced in the course of any inquiry or investigation against the writ-applicant as regards some business transaction with any other individuals, the same by itself will not confer jurisdiction to the respondent No. 2 to invoke the Section-83 of the Act – Bench is left with no other option but to quash and set aside the impugned order of provisional attachment - As on date, the order of provisional attachment cannot continue - writ-application succeeds and is hereby allowed - Bank shall permit the writ-applicant to operate his bank account: High Court [para 7 to 9]
- Petition allowed : GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-283-HC-AHM-GST
Arasuri Transport Company Vs UoI
GST - Writ applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order of detention and the SCN; release of goods and conveyance and return of the money allegedly extorted under pressure.
Held: While issuing notice, Court had directed that the vehicle as well as the goods be released, upon payment of the tax, in terms of the impugned notice - The writ applicant availed the benefit of the interim order 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 and the same shall go ahead in accordance with law - It shall be open for the writ applicant to point out the case of Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd - 2019-TIOL-546-HC-AHM-GST and rely on the observations made by this Court in paragraph Nos. 99 to 104 - It is now for the applicant to make good his case that the show cause notice, issued in Form GST-MOV-10, deserves to be discharged - Writ application stands disposed of: High Court [para 4 to 7]
- Application disposed of : GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-282-HC-AHM-GST
Mustufa Sales Agency Vs State Of Gujarat
GST - Goods and conveyance have been ordered to be released - Matter at stage of MOV-10 - writ-applicant shall file his reply and shall make his case good for the purpose of getting notice discharged - If final order of confiscation is passed u/s 130 of the Act, writ-applicant will have remedy to file appeal u/s 107 of the Act - Writ application disposed of: HC [para 4, 5]
- Application disposed of : GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-281-HC-AHM-GST
Piyush Shamjibhai Vasoya Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner had sought an order directing the respondents to release the seized goods and trucks - Goods and conveyance was ordered to be released vide order passed by this Court dated 09.05.2019 - Petitioner submits that the matter as on date is at the stage of MOV-10; that no further notice has been received in this regard.
Held: Bench disposes of writ application with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to complete the proceedings initiated against the writ applicant under Section 132 of the Act, 2017 - The writ applicant shall appear before the respondent no. 2 as and when he receives the notice and shall make good his case for the purpose of getting the notice discharged - However, in the event, if any final order in MOV-11 is passed, then, it would be open for the writ applicant to prefer an appeal against such order under Section 107 of the Act - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 4]
- Petition disposed of : GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-280-HC-DEL-GST
Mukul Mittal Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence
GST - Petitioner arrested on 9th December 2020; seeks regular bail for offence punishable u/s 132(1)(i) of the Act, 2017 - Allegation against the petitioner and his brother Ankur Mittal are that they were providing fake invoices through various firms, floated/managed either directly by them or by putting convenient people to manage their affairs, without any corresponding supply of goods and services; that around 400 such fake firms were created by the petitioner and his brother and invoices issued - According to the detailed status report, by now at least two end users namely, Larsen & Toubro Ltd. and Rama Krishna Electro Components Private Limited who were beneficiaries of the fake invoices generated from the fake firms of the applicant and Ankur Mittal have been tracked and the two companies have voluntarily deposited Rs.22 crores and Rs.7 crores respectively after initiation of the proceedings - petitioner is in custody since past 56 days - maximum punishment provided for the offence against the petitioner is imprisonment for a period of five years, therefore, CJM is required to take cognisance on the complaint that is required to be filed within 60 days - SIO states that a comprehensive complaint cannot possibly be filed within four days as around 100 hard-drives have been recovered from the offices of the petitioner and his brother and the same are required to be analysed - It is, therefore, evident that the respondent does not propose to file a complaint within 60 days and after 4 days the petitioner would, in any case, be entitled to default bail as a matter of right - Petitioner is, therefore, directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1 lakh with one surety of like amount - Petition is disposed of: High Court [para 9, 11, 12]
- Petition disposed of :DELHI HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-65-AAR-GST
KSF-9 Corporate Services Pvt Ltd
GST - Applicant is a Private Limited Company and has entered into an agreement with Kuvempu University, Shivamogga to provide manpower supply for security and housekeeping services on contract basis - The applicant has sought advance ruling as to whether they should charge GST @ 18% for providing security guards and housekeeping services to Kuvempu University, Shivamogga?
Held: Kuvempu University was established in 1987 by an Act of the Karnataka State legislature through amendment No. 28/1976 dated 29 January 1989 under the Karnataka State University Act 1976 and thus, it qualifies to be Government Authority - There are 29 items mentioned in eleventh schedule [Article 243G] and 18 items in the twelfth schedule [Article 243W] of the Constitution and provision of manpower for security and housekeeping services is not covered under the said lists, therefore, the applicant is not eligible for exemption under Serial No. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - Moreover, recipient of the applicant i.e Kuvempu University does not provide education by way of pre- school and education upto higher secondary school or equivalent, and also due to the fact that the services provided to the University are not security or cleaning or housekeeping services but supply of manpower services as stated above, hence the applicant is also not eligible to get exemption under entry number 66 of entry (b) of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28-06-2017 - Applicant has further stated that they are providing supply of Security service as well as manpower service used for maintenance and cleaning of University premises and play ground, campus area and building & office to Kuvempu University, Shivamogga and hence the impugned transaction attracts reverse charge mechanism as per section 9(3) of the GST Act vide Notification No. 13/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28-06-2017 as amended by the Notification No. 29 / 2018-Central Tax (Rate) - Since Kuvempu University is an establishment of the State Government, therefore, Kuvempu University is not liable to discharge tax under reverse charge basis - Hence the applicant is liable to discharge GST @ 18% (9% CGST + 9% KGST) on forward charge mechanism on the said supply of manpower services: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2021-TIOL-64-AAR-GST
Vevaan Ventures
GST - Principal objective of the firm is to carry out clinical research activities in India to determine the safety and effectiveness (efficacy) of medications, devices, diagnostic products and treatment regimens intended for human use - Applicant has sought to know as to what would be the SAC applicable in respect of activities undertaken, the rate of GST; whether exemption under 9/2017-ITR is applicable; whether ITC is available; whether registration is required.
Held: Services provided by the applicant is not in connection with the diagnosis or treatment or care for illness and is related to support services for research and is covered under SAC 998599 and hence is not covered under healthcare services and thereby not covered under entry no. 74 of Notification No.12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - Furthermore, the applicant is the supplier of service and is located in India and the recipient of service, i.e. the Imperial College of London, is located outside India - The payment for such service is received in convertible foreign currency and the supplier and recipient are not related persons, hence the determination of whether the service provided by the applicant to the Imperial College London is an export of service or not is wholly dependent on the place of supply - Applicant is involved in the arranging and facilitation of the supply of research services by the principal investigator to the Imperial College London and he is not covered under the exclusion clause as he is not supplying "such" research services on his own account, therefore, the applicant is covered under the definition of an "intermediary" under section 2(13) of the IGST Act, 2017 - Section 13 (8) (b) of the IGST Act, 2017 specifies the place of supply in case of intermediary services as that of the location of the supplier and hence the place of supply is the location of the applicant and since this is in India, the transaction between the applicant and the Imperial College London would not be an export of services under section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017 - Activity of the applicant is squarely covered under the entry no.23(ii) of Notification No. 11/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and is liable to tax at 9% CGST and similarly liable to tax at 9% KGST, in case the transaction is a intra-State supply - Since the services provided by the applicant is not exempt, the applicant is eligible to claim and avail input tax credit in terms of section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017 and section 16 of the KGST Act, 2017 - Since the applicant is involved in intra-State supply of services, as the location of the supplier and the place of supply is the same state, the applicant is liable to register as per the terms of section 22 of the CGST Act, 2017: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
