2021-TIOL-663-HC-DEL-GST
TMA International Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Exports - Refund of IGST - Collective grievance of the Petitioners for filing the petition is the denial of IGST refund in accordance with Section 16(3) of the IGST Act, 2017, paid by them on goods exported during the transitional period after introduction of GST Regime i.e. from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2017 - High Court had in its order dated 26 th November 2019 observed that if the petitioners have claimed and received only the customs duty portion of the drawback and element of IGST (earlier Central Excise Duty and Service Tax) was not included in the drawback rate, granting of IGST refund would not result in double neutralisation of input taxes - Nonetheless, since the Respondents had expressed their apprehension about double benefit of neutralisation of taxes, Bench felt it appropriate that before issuing final directions, Respondents should verify the extent of the duty drawback availed by the Petitioners and also whether they have availed duty drawback / CENVAT credit of Central Excise and Service Tax component in respect of the exports made by them and submit a report accordingly - Respondent submits that although the additional-affidavit, as directed by this Court has not been filed, a part of the exercise has been completed - Inasmuch as an email dated 11.03.2021 from the officer concerned has been received and which is indicative of the fact that duty drawback qua the Central Excise has not been availed of by the petitioners; that what is required to be examined by respondent no. 2, is only one aspect, which is, whether petitioners have availed duty drawback qua Service Tax - Matter is, therefore, listed on 26.03.2021: High Court [para 2, 3]
- Matter listed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-662-HC-MAD-GST
NVK Mohammed Rowther And Sons Vs Joint Commissioner of GST & CE
GST - Respondent is yet to issue any show cause notice - But from the communication dated 08.07.2020, one can safely conclude that the respondent wants to classify the petitioner's product namely, Roja Pakku under Chapter 21 and levy tax at CGST 9% and SGST 9% - Petitioner submits that the product manufactured by the petitioner is similar in all respects to products such as "Nizam Pakku" and "Crane Pakku" and which are being taxed at a lesser rate and they have not been classified under Chapter 21.
Held: When the respondent has not passed any order, the petitioner apparently has prematurely approached the Court – However, there is considerable merit in the contention that the petitioner also deserves to be given a treatment of parity and not taxed at a higher rate, if the petitioner's product is comparable to Nizam Pakku and Crane Pakku - More than anything else, as per Article 141 of the Constitution of the India, the law declared by the Supreme Court is law of the land - Merely because the petitioner had earlier opted to be classified under Chapter 21, the petitioner's past conduct cannot operate as estoppel - All that the petitioner wants is that the respondent should not predetermine the issue based on the petitioner's past conduct - Writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the respondent to proceed against the petitioner with the demand but then, by not putting the petitioner's past conduct against him - In other words, the issue will be approached from a clean slate - Miscellaneous petition is closed: High Court [para 7]
- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-95-AAR-GST
Mohitkumar Mahendrabhai Patel
GST - Applicant has neither filed the application in the prescribed format of GST-ARA-01 nor paid the required fees of Rs.10,000/- as required as per the provisions of Section 97(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 as well as Rule 104 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Therefore, the instant application is liable for rejection under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017: AAR
- Application rejected : AAR
2021-TIOL-94-AAR-GST
Khaitan Chemicals And Fertilizers Ltd
GST - On a combined reading of the provisions of the Section 97 and Rule 104 of both the CGST/GGST Acts and Rules, it is evident that the application for obtaining an Advance Ruling under sub-section(1) of Section 97 is to be submitted in FORM-GST ARA-01 and shall be accompanied by a fee of Ten thousand rupees (Five thousand rupees as per Rule 104 of the CGST Rules, 2017 + Five thousand rupees as per Rule 104 of the GGST Rules, 2017) -Applicant has not paid the fees of Rs.10,000/- under the proper head i.e. 'CGST' and 'GGST' as required under the provisions of aforementioned Sections and Rules whereas they have paid fees of Rs.10,000/- under "IGST" head - Therefore, the instant application is liable for rejection under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 for not paying the total fees of Rs.10000/- i.e. under each head CGST & GGST as required under the provisions of CGST Act and Rules and respective GGST Act & Rules: AAR
- Application rejected : AAR
2021-TIOL-93-AAR-GST
Gujarat State Road Development Corporation Ltd
GST - Although the applicant has paid the stipulated fees of Rs.10,000/-, they have not filed the application in the prescribed format of GST-ARA-01 required as per the provisions of Section 97(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 104 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Therefore, the instant application is liable for rejection under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017: AAR
- Application rejected : AAR
