Bhumi Associate Vs UoI (

GST -  Applicant summoned and under guise or interrogation kept under detention;  undue harassment, coercion etc.  and pressurised to make deposits to the  account of the department -  Notice was issued to the respondents, returnable on 16th February 2021 - Bench had directed the respondents, more particularly, the respondents Nos.2 and 3 to file their respective reply so that this Court is able to proceed further with the matter expeditiously - Respondents were directed to  appear before the Court through Video Conferencing - officers who were asked to join the video conference did join but at a very later stage - Bench heard the counsel for the writ applicants as well as the ASG appearing for the respondents -  Bench passes an interim order with the following directions.

"The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs as well as the Chief Commissioner of Central/ State Tax of the State of Gujarat are hereby directed to issue the following guidelines by way of suitable circular/instructions:

(1) No recovery in any mode by cheque, cash, e­payment or adjustment of input tax credit should be made at the time of search/inspection proceedings under Section 67 of the Central/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 under any circumstances.

(2) Even if the assessee comes forward to make voluntary payment by filing Form DRC­-03, the assessee should be asked/ advised to file such Form DRC­-03 on the next day after the end of search proceedings and after the officers of the visiting team have left the premises of the assessee.

(3) Facility of filing complaint/ grievance after the end of search proceedings should be made available to the assessee if the assessee was forced to make payment in any mode during the pendency of the search proceedings.

(4) If complaint/ grievance is filed by assessee and officer is found to have acted in defiance of the afore­stated directions, then strict disciplinary action should be initiated against the concerned officer."

Matters posted on 18.02.2021 

-Interim order passed : GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Apurva Chemicals Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST -  This is one more matter wherein serious allegations of harassment, coercion, threats, etc. have been alleged against the respondents Nos.4 and 5 respectively herein - It appears that the search was undertaken under Section 67 of the Act at the premises of the writ applicant, and in the course of the search, the respondents Nos.4 and 5 are alleged to have caused undue harassment to the writ applicant. - It is alleged that the writ applicant was forced and threatened to transfer an amount of Rs.2.68 Crore by way of the DRC - 03 - Writ application filed.

Held:  Notice to be issued to the respondents, returnable on 16th February 2021: High Court [para 3]

- Matter posted : GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Astha Ferrotech Pvt Ltd Vs State Of Jharkhand

GST - Due to non-filing of GSTR-3B by its vendor (respondent no.4) though GSTR-1 was filed by petitioner, their electronic credit ledger was blocked - N otices were issued under Rule 86A(1)(a)(i) of the Jharkhand Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 as according to the respondent no.3, ITC availed by the petitioner was ineligible - Petitioner was asked to reverse the ITC equivalent of Rs.21,38,760/- and Rs.2,79,720/- with interest computed under Section 50 of the JGST Act, 2017 respectively thereupon by 17th  August 2020 -  During pendency of the writ application, the demands were revised - Case of the petitioner is that these notices have been issued without proper application of mind - The first notice was issued under Rule 86A(1)(a)(i) on the foundational basis that respondent no.4 was shown as 'non-existent dealer' - The revised notice has been issued under Rule 86A(1)(b) on the basis that the respondent no.4 is a GSTR-3B return defaulter - It is further case of the petitioner that transaction between the petitioner and the respondent no.4 were over by 2nd May 2019 whereas Rule 86A has been brought by way of an amendment w.e.f. 1st January 2020 vide notification dated 26th December 2019 - petitioner does not dispute that a proceeding under Section 73(1) of the JGST Act read with Rule 142(1A) of the JGST Rules 2017 has been initiated against the petitioner and is presently pending before the respondent no.3.

Held:  Court is also of the view that the petitioner should subject himself to the proceedings initiated under Section 73 of the JGST Act before the respondent no.3 Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes, Adityapur Circle, Jamshedpur and produce all relevant documents, invoices, records, etc. for proper adjudication thereupon - It would not be proper for the Writ Court to enter into the merits of the controversy at this stage in such circumstances - Petitioner should appear before the respondent no.3 on 8th February 2021 - Respondent no.3 would endeavour to conclude the proceedings preferably within a period of 12 weeks thereof - Writ petition stands disposed of: High Court

- Petition disposed of : JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

Safarulla Padikkal Vs State Tax Officer Goods And Service Tax Office Kannur The Assistant Commissioner

GST -  It is the case of the appellant that the common portal of the GST system was not accepting any return after 31.3.2018 and the same stood blocked for the appellant - According to him, he could not access the common portal due to which he was unable to upload the return for the subsequent years or even to rectify the mistakes for the period till 2018 - Appellant thus sought for directions to accept his revised returns from 2017 onwards and to obtain access to GST portal for uploading the returns - It was pointed out by the Revenue that if the appellant had any technical issues as alleged, it was open to him, as an aggrieved person, to raise such technical issues with the relevant screenshots and necessary documents in accordance with law - However, no such grievance was ever raised by the appellant and on the contrary the data revealed that appellant was accessing the common portal several times during the period in dispute - Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant was not able to explain in any manner that he was unable to open the portal or the circumstances in which the returns filed by him could not have been accepted - Appellant is, therefore, in appeal before the Division Bench.

Held:  Common Goods and Services Tax Electronic Portal is maintained as www.gst.gov.in by the Goods and Services Tax Network, which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 - If the appellant had any grievance, nothing prevented him from taking up the issue in the appropriate manner with the IT Grievance Redressal Portal so as to avail the remedy from the Goods and Services Tax Network - Having  failed to raise any complaint with the IT Grievance Redressal Portal, appellant cannot seek the remedy of a writ of mandamus from this Court - In the absence of any attempt on the part of the appellant to seek recourse to the remedy available with the establishment that maintains the portal, Bench is of the firm view that the impugned judgment of the single Judge is perfectly justified and warrants no interference - However, appellant can make an application in accordance with law before the authority concerned - Writ appeal dismissed: High Court [para 7 to 10]

- Appeal dismissed: KERALA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-94-CESTAT-CHD

CNS Comnet Solution Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - The assessee is in appeal against impugned orders wherein their refund claim lying unutilized in their cenvat credit account was denied to the assessee on the ground that the service on which they are taken the cenvat credit is not input service in terms of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - They had taken cenvat credit on rent a cab service where the service provider has charged service tax from them and for the remaining invoices, they have paid service tax under reverse charge mechanism and availed the cenvat credit of the same - At the time of availement of cenvat credit, it was never disputed that the assessee is not entitled to cenvat credit on the service in question - The dispute in the matter is of sanction of refund claim of unutilized cenvat credit in their account not the issue of availment of cenvat credit on the input service, therefore, the Revenue has fell in error and wants to raise the issue of availment of cenvat credit while entertaining the refund claim - In case, assessee had not filed the refund claim, they were entitled of cenvat credit which was not objected at the time of availment - In that circumstance, at the time of entertaining refund claim, the issue of admissibility of cenvat credit cannot be raised: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT