2021-TIOL-376-HC-KAR-GST

Renuka Automotive Vs UoI

GST - On receipt of appropriate certification from the manufacturer, the petitioner tried to upload the form GST TRAN-3 declaration on the web portal of respondents which due to technical error and on account of the respondents not having enabled the said uploading, the petitioner could not upload and / or claim credit - Immediately thereafter the petitioner had raised the said issue with the authorities and requested for necessary action including by submission of hard copy thereof to be considered by the respondents - However, the said representation has not been considered nor any order passed, therefore, the petition.

Held : It appears that only on account of web portal of respondents not having provided or facilitated for uploading, the petitioner not availed the said input tax credit - A mandamus is, therefore, issued directing the respondents to consider the innumerable representations made by the petitioner from time to time in a manner so as to enable the petitioner to claim input tax credit either by permitting the petitioner to upload the form on the web portal or by collecting hard copies and processing the same - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 7, 8]

-Petition disposed of : KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-370-HC-KERALA-GST

Hash Constructions Vs Deputy Commissioner

GST - Petitioner challenges the appellate order rejecting the appeals filed on the ground of limitation.

Held: In the case in hand, despite receipt of assessment orders in FORM GST ASMT-13 dated 15.05.2019 and 14.07.2019 under Section 62 of the Act, the petitioner registered person has not filed any valid return within 30 days from the receipt of the assessment order - This ultimately has resulted in issuance of demand notice in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 22.10.2019, 27.11.2019 and 30.11.2019, mentioning the amount due and payable by the petitioner - That assessment order is not deemed to have been withdrawn due to non-filing of valid return within 30 days of service of the assessment order under Section 62 of the Act - Even during pendency of this appeals, no amendment application was moved to delete the challenge so far as the Assessment Officer in order in FORM GST ASMT-13 is concerned or to incorporate the challenge to the orders in FORM GST DRC-07 - Undisputedly, the appeals were filed on 10.03.2020 and as such, those were filed after they suffered un-condonable delay of more than four months - no fault can be found in the impugned order rejecting the appeals - petition as such is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed: High Court [para 11, 12]

- Petition dismissed : KERALA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-72-AAR-GST

Shukla Ashar Impex Pvt Ltd

GST - Product i.e. 'AAYUDH-MOSX', is a mosquito repellent and hence, classifiable under Chapter Heading No. 3808 91 91 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1985, attracting GST @18%: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-71-AAR-GST

Rotex Fabric Pvt Ltd

GST - Non Woven Bags manufactured through the intermediate product Non-Woven plastic material manufactured from Fibre grade poly propylene granules would be classified as plastic bags under HS code 3923 and would attract 18% GST: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-375-HC-MAD-VAT

Jasmines Excell Vs Assistant Commissioner (CT)

Whether the filing of writ petition against a revisionary order is sustainable where the assessee also had appellate remedy available, but did not utilise the same - NO: HC

Whether utilisation of writ remedy in a bid to gain time and delay the tax liability cannot be permitted - YES: HC

-Assessee's Writ petition dismissed : MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-377-HC-MAD-CX

L And T Hydrocarbon Engineering Ltd Vs UoI

CX/ Cus - Issue that arises in this writ petition is the eligibility or otherwise to exemption of High Speed Diesel Oil (HSD)/fuel purchased from suppliers including the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Chennai (IOCL), for operating equipment leased from contractors and sub-contractors, and exclusively used in authorized operations, from the payment of Duty under the Central Excise Act, 1944 - In the impugned order, the respondent states that diesel, being a consumable, should be used directly in the activity of manufacture to be eligible for exemption - Moreover, since, according to the respondent, no manufacturing activity has taken place in the SEZ unit, and diesel/HSD is not used as a consumable, but as a fuel for running the equipment, the claim was rejected.

Held: Preamble to the Act states that the SEZ Act provides for the establishment, development and management of the Special Economic Zones for the promotion of exports and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto - The Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Limited, Bombay V. Commissioner of Income Tax) = 2002-TIOL-763-SC-IT considered the interpretation to be accorded to a provision granting exemption, concluding that where the exemption was intended for the encouragement of specified sectors, activities or areas, the interpretation of such provisions should be liberal and not narrow - Writ Petition is allowed: High Court [para 19, 21]

CX - Petition - Maintainability - Alternate remedy - respondent has raised the plea of alternate remedy and states that the petitioner ought to have exhausted the remedy of approaching the Unit Approval Committee and Board of Approval for addressing its grievances rather than rushing to this Court by way of present writ petition - The petitioner has raised a question of interpretation of the SEZ Act and Rules and, there are, admittedly, no disputes on facts - No reason to relegate the petitioner to alternate remedy - The writ petition is held to be maintainable: High Court [para 20]

-Petition allowed : MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-369-HC-MAD-CUS

Malabar Diamond Gallery Pvt Ltd Vs Additional Director General

Cus - Petitioner has sought a mandamus directing the respondents to return the gold weighing 5541.92 grams seized vide mahazar dated 27.03.2013 in show cause notice dated 16.09.2013.

Held: Division Bench in its order dated 28.07.2016 = 2016-TIOL-1664-HC-MAD-CUS noted that the allegation against the petitioner is one of smuggling and as such, and in the light of this allegation, prima facie , the Bench was not inclined to order provisional release - No SLP has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Bench that has attained finality - The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is thus liable to be rejected straight away - Moreover, the prayer in the present writ petition is only a repetition of the prayer in W.P. No. 18833 of 2013 and no legal distinction is made out between the two reliefs sought - relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted - writ petition is dismissed: High Court [para 4, 5]

- Petition dismissed : MADRAS HIGH COURT