|
2021-TIOL-1053-HC-MAD-GST Carlstahl Craftsman Enterprises Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner challenges order dated 19.09.2019, rejecting his request for carry forward of Input Tax Credit (ITC) into the GST regime - Admittedly, TRAN-1, was filed within time, however, an inadvertent error had crept into the Form and instead of posting the amount of credit as Rs. 54,94,151/- only an amount of Rs. 29,05,595/- was updated; that while attempting to correct the error, yet another mistake occurred as the difference was updated in table 7d of the Form instead of table 7b; that a request for rectification came to be filed on 12.03.2019, that came to be rejected, by order dated 19.09.2019.
Held: In the present case, the error is seen to be inadvertent, constituting a human error and the Revenue does not dispute this either - Moreover, the era of GST is nascent and Bench is of the view that a rigid view should not be taken in procedural matters such as the present one - The petitioner is thus be permitted to transition the credit - After all, the consequence of such transition is only the availment of the credit and not the utilization itself, which is a matter of assessment and which can be looked into by the Assessing Officer at the appropriate stage - Writ petition is allowed: High Court [para 4 to 6]
- Petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1052-HC-MAD-GST
Muniappa Steels Vs ACST
GST - Challenge is to order of assessment dated 08.01.2021 passed in terms of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - In the show cause notice, the Assessing Authority states that the supplier had admitted in his statement recorded by the Central GST Authorities that they had neither received any inward nor engaged in outward supply; therefore, the transaction was not genuine and the petitioner was engaging in bill trading - In response, the petitioner has specifically sought the statement recorded by the third party dealer reserving his right to cross examine the dealer as well as to file objections to the same - However, the impugned order has come to be passed without hearing the petitioner and admittedly, without supplying the statement relied upon by the Officer.
Held: Conclusion in the assessment order, in fact, mentions the statement recorded by the third party dealer and in the light of the fact that this statement forms the basis of assessment, the petitioner ought to have been granted opportunity to peruse the statement and put forth its objections to the same - This has not been done, which, constitutes principles of violation of natural justice - impugned order is thus set aside – statement be supplied to the petitioner within a period of three weeks - petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing and a speaking order shall be passed by the Officer within a period of six weeks - Writ Petition is disposed of: High Court [para 4, 5]
- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1050-HC-AHM-GST
Suprimkumar Jitendrabhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat
GST - Applicant was arrested on 07.12.2020 - Applicant seeks bail in the matter of case registered under the CGST Act, 2017 - It is alleged that the applicant had generated E-Way bills of 16 firms by concealing the identity of the real purchaser and real seller and has caused huge revenue loss to the tune of Rs.9.60 crores by evading tax.
Held: Court has examined the role and names connected with such firms and prima facie it appears that the applicant is involved in four firms viz: Meet Traders(Rs. 39,39,864/- tax evaded), Ravi Enterprise (Rs. 40,14,306/- tax evaded), V.S. Trading (Rs.38,06,024/- tax evaded) and Vikas Enterprise (Rs. 38,99,983/- tax evaded) - Except these four firms nothing is pointed to this Court with regard to the complicity of the applicant in generating EWAY bills of other firms - The total tax evasion of these four firms comes to Rs.1,60,00,000/ approx. - The applicant is also ready and willing to deposit some of the amount - Under the circumstances, having perused the materials placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant - present application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one local surety of the like amount; d eposit an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- within a period of 10 (ten) days before the trial Court - On depositing the aforesaid amount, the applicant shall be released on bail - The applicant shall file an undertaking that the remaining amount of Rs.30,00,000/- shall be deposited within a period of 12 (twelve) weeks: High Court [para 7, 9]
- Application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1049-HC-MAD-GST
Uber India Systems Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Writ petition has been filed seeking a Mandamus directing R2, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to consider and decide its various representations, on the taxability of the receipts from its services [of business of operating and managing a software application by the name of "Uber App" which enables consumers to avail ride-hailing services by connecting them with driver] under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 .
Held: Position in law, as laid down in Notification 12 of 2017, specifically Sl. No.15 (b), would apply in regard to the taxability of the transaction, and the petitioner as well as other similarly placed stakeholders appear to have acquiesced with this position - The apprehensions levelled by the petitioner to the effect that other operators are adopting differing positions in regard to the taxability of business receipts stands assuaged, the respondent stating that necessary action would be taken to ensure that there is compliance, across the board - As the mandamus sought for stands achieved, writ petition is closed: High Court [para 4]
- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT |
|
