2021-TIOL-877-HC-MAD-GST

Anand Distributors Vs UoI

GST - Section 140(3) of the CGST Act - Rule 117 of CGST Rules, 2017 - Case of the petitioner is that when CGST Act came into force on 01.07.2017, they were entitled to a credit of Rs.5,03,202/- - The petitioner would state that though he made several attempts to file form GST TRAN-1, he could not do so due to technical glitches, therefore, they made a representation but the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 28.08.2019 - The sixth respondent had stated that in the impugned communication that there is no evidence to show that there was a system error in the log - Questioning this, the writ petition has been filed – Counsel for Revenue submitted that no relief can be granted in the writ proceedings.

Held: Case on hand is squarely covered by the Single Judge order dated 14.02.2020 made in W.P.No.3328 of 2020 and which order was upheld by the Division Bench [M/ s. Checkpoint Apparel = 2020-TIOL-1692-HC-MAD-GST ] by dismissing the appeal of the Department by imposing costs and directing that the due benefit of input credit of stocks, as on 1.7.2017, shall be given to the Assessee either by accepting the offline copy of Form Tran-1 submitted by the Assessee or by allowing him to resubmit the same on E-portal of the GSTN by providing opportunity to Assessee to do it now – There can be no doubt that the petitioner made effort to upload the details on the web portal - Even according to the respondents, though Rule 117 of CGST Rules, 2017, originally stipulates that Form TRAN-1 is filed within 90 days, there was a periodical extension and the final extended date was 31.03.2020 - In the present case, the impugned order itself came to be passed on 28.08.2019 - Therefore, applying the aforesaid decision made in W.P.(MD)No.3328 of 2020, the communication impugned in the writ petition is quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed - The respondents are directed to facilitate the uploading of Form TRAN-1 of the petitioner, entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks : High Court [para 6, 7]

- Petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-876-HC-MAD-GST

Sekar And Company Vs Pr.Secretary CCT

GST - Section 140(3) of the CGST Act - Rule 117 of CGST Rules, 2017 - Case of the petitioner is that due to technical glitches, the petitioner could not file the said Form TRAN-1 - The petitioner claims that they approached the office of the second respondent in person on at least two occasions to present the Form TRAN-1 manually and submitted a representation but since there has been no response, the present petition - Counsel for the Revenue submitted that petitioner had already missed the bus and, therefore, no relief can be granted in this writ proceeding.

Held : Case on hand is squarely covered by the Single Judge order dated 14.02.2020 made in W.P.No.3328 of 2020 and which order was upheld by the Division Bench [ M/ s.Checkpoint Apparel = 2020-TIOL-1692-HC-MAD-GST ] by dismissing the appeal of the Department by imposing costs and directing that the due benefit of input credit of stocks, as on 1.7.2017, shall be given to the Assessee either by accepting the offline copy of Form Tran-1 submitted by the Assessee or by allowing him to resubmit the same on E-portal of the GSTN by providing opportunity to Assessee to do it now - Petitioner has made out a clear case for grant of relief - The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to facilitate the uploading of Form TRAN-1 by the petitioner as originally prayed for and the exercise is to be completed within a period of eight weeks: High Court [para 8, 9]

- Petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-120-AAR-GST

Vadilal Industries Ltd

GST - 'Flavoured milk' sold under trade name of Power Sip is classifiable under Tariff Item 2202 99 30 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as a "beverage containing milk" and is not classifiable under either CTH 0402 or 0404 as contended by applicant: AAR

- Application disposed of : AAR

2021-TIOL-119-AAR-GST

Unlimited Unnati Pvt Ltd

GST - Applicant has asked the following questions seeking Advance Ruling on the same - Whether the service provided to recipient of foreign country will be considered as export and zero rated supply?; Commission paid to foreign agent who is non-resident of India and he does not have any permanent establishment or business connection in India then what is liability of GST on such commission payable to foreign agent related to service provided out of India?

Held: No answer is provided to the applicant in respect of both the questions on the following grounds - ( i ) The question is outside the ambit of the provisions of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 as both the questions are related to export of service which would also require the determination of place of supply of services which is not under the scope of jurisdiction of the Advance Ruling Authorities (ii) Non-submission of copies of the contract/agreement in respect of the services provided/to be provided by the applicant on the issue discussed herein above: AAR

- Application rejected : AAR

2021-TIOL-118-AAR-GST

Aristo Bullion Pvt Ltd

GST - Applicant cannot use the Input Tax Credit Balance available in the Electronic Credit Ledger legitimately earned on the inputs/raw-materials/inward supplies (meant for outward supply of Bullions) towards the GST liability on 'Castor Oil Seed' which were procured from Agriculturists and subsequently meant for onward supply - Even the basic conditions envisaged in the provisions of Section 16(1) have not been fulfilled in the instant case and, therefore, undoubtedly the aforementioned inputs are not used or intended to be used in the course or furtherance of the business of supply of Castor oil seeds: AAR

- Application disposed of : AAR

2021-TIOL-117-AAR-GST

Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service

GST - Applicant, Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service (AMTS) merits qualification as "Local Authority" - AMTS is not liable to pay GST on procurement of security services, received from any person other than body corporate, under reverse charge mechanism - Service recipients of AMTS are required to pay GST under reverse charge mechanism on advertisement service - AMTS is required to be registered as a Deductor under GST as per the provision of Section 24 of the CGST Act: AAR

- Application disposed of : AAR

2021-TIOL-878-HC-MUM-MISC

Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd Vs State Of Goa

Whether the Tribunal is not expected to brush aside ground of bias raised by taxpayer - YES: HC

- Case disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-870-HC-MAD-VAT

Sham Interiors Vs Assistant Commercial Tax Officer

Whether assessment orders merit being quashed where passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee - YES: HC Whether notices proposing attachment of property for recovery of tax liability, are premature, where the limitation period for filing first appeal is on-going - YES: HC

- Assessee's writ petitions allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-879-HC-MAD-CUS

Brisky Traders Vs ACC

Cus - Petitioner had imported Brass Scrap(Melon) from Maldives - Customs department took the stand that without getting clearance from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, the petitioner could not have imported and, therefore, while ordering confiscation, the Assistant Commissioner permitted the petitioner to re-export the goods at his own cost while also imposing penalty - Since the said order was confirmed by the appellate authority, the order became final - The petitioner did not re-export the goods but paid only a sum of Rs.1,00,000 /- towards penalty, therefore, the authority attached the petitioner's bank account with the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank - The petitioner requested that the authority can as well sell the goods in question and recover the proceeds but since no action was taken, the present petitions were filed.

Held: As rightly pointed out by the petitioner, even while holding that the goods are liable for confiscation, in the very same breath, the assessing authority had held that the goods can be re-exported - Therefore, no final order of confiscation has been passed so far - It is not as if the import of the goods is totally prohibited and they would only come under the restricted category, therefore, the goods can be sold to someone who is authorised to take the goods and the Government will definitely be getting some revenue - Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to sell the petition mentioned goods and appropriate the sale proceeds against the petitioner's liability - If the goods in question fetch more amount than the petitioner's liability, then after due adjustment, the balance amount will have to be paid to the petitioner and the attachment of the bank account will be raised - If the sales proceeds are not sufficient to liquidate the petitioner's liability, then the question of raising attachment does not arise at all - Entire exercise to be completed within four months: High Court [para 6, 8, 9]

- Petitions disposed of : MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-212-CESTAT-MAD

Netel India Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The appellant is in appeal against impugned order, whereby the interest charged under Section 18(3) of Customs Act has been upheld - It is the case of appellant which is also not disputed by Revenue that it had made a cash/security deposit which upon finalization of O-I-O has been appropriated towards differential duty along with an interest - A reading of sub-section (3) makes it clear that any such interest could only be charged upto the date of payment and not upto the date of order i.e., 07.05.2019 - Hence, the impugned charging of interest is not in order - When the statute itself prescribes both the starting point and the ending point, to say that it shall be from the first day of the month in which the duty is provisionally assessed till the date of payment thereof, to read the same as "on the date of order" is beyond the legislative intent - Therefore, the impugned order to this extent is not sustainable and hence, the same is set aside - The matter is remanded to the file of the adjudicating authority to verify from the records and charge the interest only upto the date of payment as mandated in Section 18(3) and not as upto the date of O-I-O: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: CHENNAI CESTAT