2021-TIOL-604-HC-MAD-GST
Pentacle Plant Machineries Pvt Ltd Vs GST Council
GST - Petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the respondents to rectify the mistake in its GSTR-1 return, wherein it has, instead of the GST number of the purchaser in Andhra Pradesh, mentioned the GST number of the purchaser in Uttar Pradesh.
Held:
+ Had the requisite statutory Forms been notified, this error would have been captured in the GSTR-2 return, an online form, wherein the details of transactions contained in the GSTR-3 return would be auto-populated and any mismatch noted.
+ Likewise, had the GSTR-1A return been notified, the mismatch might have been noticed at the end of the purchaser/recipient.
+ However, neither Form GSTR-2 nor Form GSTR-1A have been notified till date. No doubt, the time for modification/amendment of a GSTR-3B return was extended till the 31st of March 2019, which benefit the petitioner did not avail since it was unaware that a mistake had crept into its original returns.
+ The revenue does not dispute the position that Forms GSTR-2 and 1A are yet to be notified. It also does not dispute the position that goods have reached the intended recipient. However, the credit claimed on the basis of accompanying invoices has been denied solely on account of the mismatch in GSTR number.
+ It is only on 15.07.2019 when the recipient notified the petitioner of the rejection of the credit, seeking amendment of the return, and threatening legal action, that the petition came to be aware of the mismatch.
+ Since Forms GSTR-1A and GSTR-2 are yet to be notified, the petitioner should not be mulcted with any liability on account of the bonafide, human error and the petitioner must be permitted to correct the same.
+ Direction is issued to R2 to enable amendment to GSTR-1 with all consequences thereto, within a period of eight (8) weeks.
+ Writ petition is allowed
- Petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-600-HC-AHM-GST
Jilani Shahnavaz Mulla Vs State of Gujarat
GST - By way of an ad-interim relief, the truck was ordered to be released upon applicant paying a fine as proposed in notice dated 15th July 2019 issued under Section 130 of the Act in lieu of confiscation of conveyance - The Court is not sure whether any final order of confiscation under Section 130 of the Act has been passed or not, if the same has been passed, then it shall be open for applicant to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Act - If, ultimately, the applicant succeeds in appeal, then he would be entitled to the refund of the amount as deposited by him: HC
- Writ application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-599-HC-AHM-GST
Gohil Shaktisinh Girvansinh Transporter Vs State of Gujarat
GST - The truck as well as the goods were ordered to be released subject to the final outcome of writ application - As the final order of confiscation in Form GST MOV 11 has already been passed, the court would not like to examine the legality and validity of same as a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act is available to the writ applicant - The writ application is disposed of with liberty to prefer an appeal under Section 107 of the Act in accordance with law - It is clarified that in the event, if the writ applicant fails in appeal, then, as observed by the Coordinate Bench, the differential amount will have to be paid by the writ applicant - It is further clarified that if the writ applicant intends to file any appeal, he may do so within a period of thirty days, failing which, the authority concerned shall give effect to the order passed by this Court in 2019-TIOL-2308-HC-AHM-GST : HC
- Writ application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-598-HC-AHM-GST
Sakul Nazar Mohmd Vs State of Gujarat
GST - By way of ad-interim relief, the authorities are directed to forthwith release the truck along with the goods contained therein - The applicant informs this Court that during the pendency of this application, the final order of confiscation in Form GST MOV 11 has already been passed - In that view of the matter, the court relegate the applicant to avail remedy of filing an appeal against the final order of confiscation available to him under Section 107 of the Act in accordance with law: HC
- Writ application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-597-HC-MUM-GST
Dharmesh Gandhi Vs Assistant Commissioner
GST - Petitioner seeks quashing of communication dated 09.11.2020 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Anti-Evasion), CGST and Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate i.e., respondent No. 1 to the Branch Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Fort Branch, Mumbai for provisional attachment of property under section 83 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Principal grievance of the petitioner is that the attachment of bank accounts pursuant to the impugned communication dated 09.11.2020 is not only restricted to him but also of his family members and has, therefore, assailed the legality and validity of the provisional attachments.
Held: Bench finds that out of the nine bank accounts that have been attached by respondent No. 1, only the accounts at Sr. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 belong to the petitioner whereas the other accounts belong to the family members, namely, Bharti H. Gandhi (mother), Pranjal D. Gandhi (wife) and Shaalin D. Gandhi (son) - In Siddharth Mandavia Vs. Union of India, 2020-TIOL-1861-HC-MUM-GST, this Court had examined a similar issue relating to attachment of bank account of not only the taxable person but also of his family members and in that context, this Court held that bank account of only the taxable person can be provisionally attached under section 83 of the CGST Act and therefore the provisional attachment of bank account of the family members was set aside - Insofar as the bank account of the taxable person in Siddharth Mandavia (supra) was concerned, this Court took note of the provisions contained in sub rules (5) and (6) of Rule 159 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and relegated the taxable person to the forum of the Commissioner to take a decision regarding release of the bank account of the taxable person provisionally attached - Having regard to the same, Bench passes the following orders - viz. I) The bank accounts at Sr. Nos. 1 and 5 to 9 as per statement shall be released from provisional attachment forthwith; II) Insofar as the bank accounts of the petitioner at Sr. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the said statement are concerned, petitioner may file objection before the Commissioner i.e. respondent No. 2 within a period of seven days from today and III) If such objection is filed as above, respondent No. 2 shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three weeks - writ petition is disposed of: High Court [para 7 to 9]
- Petition disposed of :BOMBAY HIGH COURT
