2021-TIOL-696-HC-P&H-GST
Narinder Chugh Vs UoI
GST - The petitioner is challenging the vires of Sections 69 and 132 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - He has inter alia prayed for interim relief during pendency of writ petition as non-bailable warrants have been issued by competent authority - As regards to plea of petitioner that interim orders of protection against arrest in Shyam Khemani and Ram Prakash Malpani , have been passed after the orders passed in Sapna Jain 2019-TIOL-217-SC-GST and thus, this Court should pass order in the same terms, no merit found in the said plea - This is for the reason that subsequent orders passed after Sapna Jain's case have been passed by Supreme Court itself - The High Courts, however, have been directed to keep in mind that a SLP against order passed by Telangana High Court was dismissed - It will not be out of place to refer here to an order passed by Delhi High Court in Dhruv Krishan Maggu 2021-TIOL-89-HC-DEL-GST , in which a similar prayer made by petitioner seeking interim protection was rejected - A special enactment has been enacted for recovery of taxes, under enabling provisions contained in Section 4 of Cr.P.C. - The Parliament is empowered under Article 246-A of the Constitution to enact special laws with regard to Goods and Services Tax - It is well settled that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favourable order under Section 438 of the code - In such cases effective interrogation of suspected person(s) is of tremendous advantage in disintering many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed - Though these observations were made in a petition in context of Section 438 Cr.P.C., they are relevant insofar as the authorization letter gives the power to the concerned authority to place a person under arrest in case he does not cooperate with the investigating agency - However, since court is dealing only with the prayer for interim relief at present, no need to express any final opinion on the issue - The court have no option, but to decline the prayer for interim protection to the petitioner during pendency of investigation: HC
- Petition dismissed: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-695-HC-AHM-GST
Jap Modular Furniture Concepts Pvt Ltd Vs State of Gujarat
GST - The writ applicants are engaged in import and sale of furniture - The Chartered Accountant of writ applicants committed default in filing returns under VAT Act on account of which the registration certificate of writ applicants under VAT Act was cancelled - Based on such cancellation, the provisional registration of writ applicants under GST Act was also blocked / inactivated and final registration was not granted to the writ applicants under GST Act - Because of inactivation of registration certificate, the writ applicants were unable to file the returns and pay tax under the GST Act nor they were able to claim the Input Tax Credit of IGST paid on the imports made during the interregnum period - Since no response was received from the authorities despite number of representations, the present writ application had to come before this Court - The respondents are directed to unblock / activate the registration under the GST Act and grant the final registration certificate under GST Act with effect from 1st July 2017 at the earliest - The respondents shall permit the writ applicants to upload the returns and pay tax under the GST Act from 1st July 2017 onwards without charging any late fee for the belated filing of the returns - The respondents are also directed to allow the writ applicants to claim the Input Tax Credit in respect of the imports / purchases made during the period in which the registration under the GST Act was blocked / inactivated and no dispute of time limit under Section 16(4) of the GST Act shall be raised as the Input Tax Credit was not allowed to be claimed on account of blocking / inactivation of the registration by the respondents: HC
- Writ application allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-694-HC-AHM-GST
Admark Polycoals Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - As the subject matter of challenge is to the constitutional validity of Subrule (10) of Rule-96 of CGST Rules, 2017 , the Union of India is expected to file appropriate reply at the earliest - One last chance is given to the Union of India to file the reply, otherwise, on the next date of hearing, the Court shall proceed to hear the matter finally: HC
- Writ applications disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-689-HC-AHM-GST
Precision Gasification Services Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Writ applicants had unutilized input tax credit of Rs.12,30,843/- under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rs.20,01,640/- under the Finance Act, 1994 which was carried forward in the returns - The writ applicants duly filed the GST Form TRAN 1 within the stipulated time period - Such transitional tax credit was however not reflected in the electronic credit ledger. When the writ applicants approached the authorities requesting for grant of such credit, the writ applicants were informed that since the amount of credit was shown in the wrong column in the Form GST TRAN 1, the transitional tax credit could not be granted to the writ applicants - Petitioner seeks an order directing the respondents to forthwith grant transitional credit under Section 140(1) of the CGST Act in the electronic credit ledger of the amount of carry forward credit of Rs.12,30,843/- under the Excise Act and Rs.20,01,640/- under the Finance Act, 1994.
Held : Issue arising in the present writ application is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in the case of Jakap Metind Pvt. Ltd. = 2019-TIOL-2586-HC-AHM-GST - In view of the aforesaid, this writ application succeeds and is accordingly allowed - The respondents are directed to either open the online portal, so as to enable the writ applicants to again file rectified Form GST TRAN-1 electronically or accept the manually filled form GST TRAN-1 with necessary corrections on, or before, 18.05.2021 - Writ application is disposed of: High [para 5, 6]
- Application disposed of : GUJARAT HIGH COURT
