|
2021-TIOL-1252-HC-DEL-GST
Acme Housing India Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - There is an assertion made in the application to the effect that, the purported profiteered amount has been passed on to the customers, and information qua the same has not only been furnished in the past but has also been furnished by way of instant application as well - Thus, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, respondent no. 3 is directed to verify the details furnished by the petitioner, and revert with appropriate instructions on the next date of hearing - Matter listed on 09.08.2021 - Summons by Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering Authority should be kept in abeyance till the next date of hearing, i.e., 09.08.2021 - Quite obviously, the petitioner cannot plead defence of limitation, by including the period for which the summons are kept in abeyance, as the leeway is given, inter alia, for the benefit of its authorised representatives and employees: High Court [para 5.1, 5.2, 6, 8]
- Matter listed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1245-HC-DEL-GST RR Distributors Pvt Ltd Vs CCT & GST
GST - Present petition was heard on 21st December, 2020 along with other batch matters relating to difficulties faced by taxpayers in filing form GST TRAN-1.
Held: Non-filing of part 7B of table 7(a) and table 7(d) of TRAN-1 Form cannot impair the rights of the petitioner to claim transitional ITC, if he is otherwise eligible - Court has observed in numerous decisions that the GST system was in a trial-and-error phase as far as its implementation was concerned and ever since GSTN network became operational, taxpayers genuinely faced difficulties in filing the returns and input tax credit in the GST portal - Acknowledging the procedure and difficulties in claiming input tax credit, this Court and several other High Courts have granted relief to such taxpayers - Failure on the part of the Petitioner to give relevant details in TRAN-1 Form can only be taken as a procedural lapse which should not cause any impediment to its right to claim transitional ITC - On 4th January, 2018, when the Petitioner attempted to load TRAN-2 Form, no time had been specified under the Rules, which could be deemed to be mandatory - The time period was introduced on 7th March, 2018 through Notification No. 12/2018-CT - On 7th March, 2018 when the notification was introduced, specifying the time, the Petitioner had already attempted to load TRAN-2 Form, which was denied on the ground of non-filing in part 7B of table 7(a) as well as table 7(d) of TRAN-1 Form - No reason to deny the Petitioner the relief as sought for in the petition - Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and Bench directs the Respondents to either open the online portal so as to enable the Petitioner to file the rectified TRAN-1 Form electronically, or accept the same manually with necessary corrections, on or before 30th June, 2021 - The Petitioner will thereafter be permitted to correspondingly file the TRAN-2 Form which also shall be accepted either electronically by opening the online portal, or manually – Petition disposed of: High Court [para 11, 12, 13]
- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1244-HC-MAD-GST
Subaya Constructions Company Ltd Vs Tamil Nadu Water Supply And Drainage Board
GST - An agreement was entered into between petitioner and Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board for laying Under Ground Sewerage works for Karaikudi Municipality, Sivagangai District on 25.01.2016 - It is seen from the contract that quotation given by the petitioner was inclusive of TNVAT and Excise Duty components - With effect from 01.07.2017, GST Regime came into force - The distinction between civil works and other works became irrelevant since all the works contract for construction activities came to be taxed at 12% - Since the tax regime had undergone a change, it became necessary to re-work the terms of the contract - The Government of Tamil Nadu considered the prevalent situation and issued G.O.Ms.No . 296 Finance (Salaries) Department, dated 09.10.2017 - The supplier, while raising bills and tax invoice post-GST, will now have to collect GST from the purchaser at revised rates of notified percentage of value of supply and remit the same to the respective Government - The Government came out with a formula as set out in paragraph No. 10 of the said Government Order - The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner's case will fall under paragraph No. 10(c) whereas the stand of the petitioner is that the case will fall under paragraph No. 10(a).
Held: Respondents would undertake the exercise of calculating tax component by applying all the three formulas and the value of the subsumed tax can be arrived at values estimated in (a) or (b) or (c), whichever is higher - The petitioner's counsel made it clear that the petitioner should not be saddled with tax liability - When the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent Board, the contract price comprised three components, namely, cost factor, profit margin and tax component - There cannot be any contest regarding the cost factor and profit margin - The tax liability will have to be borne by the respondent Board - The respondents are directed to rework the terms of the contract and enter into a revised agreement with the petitioner - The entire exercise shall be concluded within a period of eight weeks - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 15]
- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1243-HC-DEL-GST
Super India Paper Products Vs UoI
GST - Taxpayers have filed the TRAN-1 Form within time, however on account of an inadvertent mistake on their part, incorrect details have been submitted via the TRAN-1 Form, and thus, they seek revision/rectification of their TRAN-1 Form.
Held: It is seen that since there is no effective mechanism provided for the revision/rectification of TRAN-1 Form, the Petitioners were forced to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution - There is no dispute as to the fact that the Petitioners filed the TRAN-1 Form within the prescribed time, however, they were precluded from claiming their transitional credit on account of inadvertent error on their part due to filling in of wrong details or omissions - In the opinion of this Court, a genuine mistake should not result in the Petitioners' losing out on their accumulated credit which is protected by Article 300A of the Constitution - The lack of an effective revisional mechanism would leave the taxpayers remediless, which, to our minds, could not be the intention of the law, and moreover, no provision was brought to our notice which extinguishes the said right of the taxpayer - For such reasons, the present set of cases are also allowed - Respondents are directed to either re-open the online portal so as to enable the Petitioners to file TRAN-1 Form electronically, or to accept the same manually on or before 30th June, 2021. The Respondents shall process the Petitioners' claims in accordance with law once the TRAN-1 Form is filed: High Court [para 26, 29]
- Petitions allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT |
|
