2021-TIOL-750-HC-AHM-GST
Jigar Cars Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Petitioners seek an appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to forthwith positively act upon the representations of the petitioners and allow rectification of Form GST TRAN-2 filed for the month of July 2017 and in any case allow the petitioners to file returns in Form GST TRAN-2 and claim transitional credit for supplies made in the months of August 2017 to December 2017.
Held: Writ-applicants cannot be made to lose the benefit of deemed transitional tax credit from August 2017 onwards only on account of an inadvertent and bonafide typographical error made in the Form GST TRAN-2 for the month of July 2017 - Judgment of this Court in the case of Jakap Metind Pvt. Ltd. ( 2019-TIOL-2586-HC-AHM-GST ), is in the context of an inadvertent error in the Form GST TRAN-1, however, the ratio should apply even in the case on hand - Writ-application succeeds and is hereby allowed - The respondents are directed to either open an online portal so as to enable the writ-applicants to again file a rectified Form GST TRAN-2 electronically, for the month of July 2017 as well as the Form GST TRAN-2 for the subsequent months from August to December 2017, or accept the manually filed Form GST TRAN-2 for all the months with necessary corrections: High Court [para 8 to 10]
- Petition allowed : GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-749-HC-AHM-GST
Mohd Sahil Jakir Vs State Of Gujarat
GST - Petitioner had sought for quashing and setting aside detention order dated 31.8.2019 in Form GST Mov-6 and confiscation notice dated 31.8.2019 in form GST MOV-10 - By an interim order, the goods and the truck were ordered to be released and the writ-applicants were asked to file an undertaking to the effect that ultimately if he would fail in the case, he shall pay the amount of liability under the impugned order - Bench is informed that the final order of confiscation in Form MOV-11 has been passed by the concerned authority.
Held: Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in the present writ-application as the writ-application came to be virtually allowed by way of the aforesaid interim order - If the final order of confiscation has been passed, then it shall be open for the writ applicants to challenge the same by preferring an appeal under Section 107 of the Act - At the same time, the authority concerned shall proceed further in terms of the undertaking filed by the writ applicants subject to any order that may be passed by the appellate authority in appeal that may be filed by the writ-applicant - writ-application stands disposed of: High Court [para 5, 6]
- Application disposed of : GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-748-HC-KAR-GST
NMDC Vs AAR
GST - Petitioner contends that the AAAR has erred in law and facts in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable as it was filed beyond the period of 60 days; that the order on the issue of advance ruling was passed on 21.09.2019 and the application for rectification for advance ruling was rejected on 23.03.2020 and, therefore, keeping in view the doctrine of merger, the limitation should have been counted with effect from 23.03.2020 - That even if there is a delay, this court under Article 226 of Constitution of India can exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to condone such delay and the arguments can be canvassed on merits also.
Held: Statutory provisions governing the field provides for a remedy of appeal and the petitioner has preferred an appeal on 22.06.2020 and the AAAR has passed an order dismissing the appeal on 21.09.2020 which is impugned - In the considered opinion of this court, application for rectification of the mistake was dismissed summarily as there was no error apparent, hence, the doctrine of merger has not taken place - Court has carefully gone through the cited judgments and is of the considered opinion that the statute relating to delay under the Income Tax Act and under the CGST Act are not at all identical - It is provided categorically under the CGST Act that no delay can be condoned after expiry of 30 + 30 days period - No such contingency was involved in the aforesaid case - Not only this, the doctrine of merger is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence, no relief can be granted on the basis of the aforesaid judgment - AAAR was justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation as it was not having power to condone the delay beyond 30 days - Therefore, this Court also does not find reason to condone the delay keeping in view the statutory provisions: High Court [para 6, 8, 10, 15]
Limitation - The law of limitation is found upon maxims such as "Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium " which means that litigation must come to an end in the interest of society as a whole, and " vigilantibus non dormientibus Jura subveniunt " which means that the law assists those that are vigilant with their rights, and not those that sleep thereupon - The law of limitation in India identifies the need for limiting litigation by striking a balance between the interests of the state and the litigant - Petition dismissed: High Court [para 16, 18]
- Petition dismissed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-746-HC-KAR-GST
INM Technologies Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner seeks relief to the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make arrangements for reflecting their electronic credit ledger, the CENVAT Credit as shown in the TRAN-1 form issued in favour of the petitioner - When the petitioner tried to upload the said form and claim credit, the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner was not shown on the website or web portal of the respondent. Inasmuch as though the petitioner is entitled to claim benefit on Rs.16,27,341/-, the admissible credit was shown as zero - Grievance raised but no action was taken thereon, hence the petition.
Held: Merely because there was a glitch in the website and or that the website is not working properly, a registered dealer cannot be denied the benefit of credit available under the provisions of Section 140 of the Act - In view thereof, the respondents are directed to make necessary arrangement by updating the data available with the respondent as regards the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner and reflect the correct amount so as to enable the petitioner to claim said credit - If same is not possible electronically, to receive physical hard copy from the petitioner for the purpose of consideration of grant of such credit, by considering the representation and grievance submitted by petitioner within a period of eight weeks: High Court [para 6]
- Petition disposed of: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
