2021-TIOL-1261-HC-P&H-GST

Kaushal Kumar Mishra Vs Senior Intelligence Officer

GST - Petitioner apprehends that he may be arrested in view of the allegation that he has defrauded the exchequer by wrongly obtaining ITC in excess of Rs.5 crores - Petitioner, therefore, seeks anticipatory bail - Petitioner submits that he purchases scrap from various entities and sells it to his sister concern, which further sells it to manufacturer of steel etc.; that even if he purchases finished goods (as is the allegation of the respondent) the rate of GST thereupon is 18% which is also the rate in case of scrap; that the petitioner does not draw any benefit from purchasing finished products and selling them as scrap; that the record of the period being investigated is already with the respondent and nothing more is to be recovered from the petitioner, hence custodial interrogation is not necessary - Counsel for Respondent revenue submits that the petitioner has purchased raw material under various HSN codes but has sold the same under a single HSN code and this shows that the conduct is fraudulent.

Held: Counsel for respondent was asked about the rate of GST on the various items purchased under the different HSN codes, whether it is less or more than 18% and to which the Counsel prayed for time to get the appropriate information - Matter is adjourned to 06.07.2021 - Petitioner is directed to appear before the IO for investigation and cooperate - In the event of his arrest, he shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the IO subject to the compliance of the conditions enshrined u/s 438(2) of the Cr.PC: High Court

- Matter adjourned: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1260-HC-KAR-GST

Kalebudde Logistics Vs CTO

GST - Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.07.2019 passed by the second respondent without giving an opportunity of hearing of the petitioner - Respondents fairly submits that no opportunity was given to the petitioner and without hearing the petitioner, second respondent has passed the impugned order.

Held: Impugned order passed by the second respondent without hearing petitioner is in contravention of principles of natural justice, hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice - Accordingly, writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is hereby set aside - The matter is remitted to the second respondent to reconsider the appeal afresh after hearing the parties and pass appropriate order in accordance with law - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 7]

- Petition disposed of: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1259-HC-MAD-GST

J Saraswathiammal Powerloom Vs GST

GST - Following the implementation of GST Regime with effect from 01.07.2017, the petitioners filed form TRAN-1 declarations, however, the ITC was not carried forward in the Electronic Credit Ledger, therefore, they have been submitting representations right from 30th January 2019 - Stand of the respondents is that since the dealers have not proved that failure to successfully upload was due to technical glitches in the portal, the petitioners cannot be granted relief - Hence, petitions filed.

Held: Stand of the respondents is too narrow and technical - Single Judge in the case of M/s. Checkpoint Apparel Labeling Solutions India Private Limited has held that such requirement (of the assessee to prove that failure to successfully upload was due to technical glitches) does not figure in the Act prior to 03.04.2018 and thus an assessee has not been put to notice that he would have to collect evidence of difficulty/technical glitch in uploading forms; that the Bench is unable to understand as to how the assessee would have anticipated this requirement (of Board Circular dated 03.04.2018) in order that it collects proof by way of screen shots and otherwise establish the factum of technical glitches - Furthermore, Division Bench vide Order dated 23.09.2020 [ 2020-TIOL-1692-HC-MAD-GST ] dismissed the writ appeal filed by the department against this order of Single Judge - Following the aforesaid decision, Bench directs the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 to take up the matter once again with GSTIN and ensure that the petition mentioned TNVAT credit available to the petitioners is duly reflected in the respective Electronic Credit Ledgers of the petitioners - The entire exercise shall be concluded within a period of twelve weeks - Petitions allowed: High Court [para 4 to 7]

- Petitions allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT