2021-TIOL-1283-HC-KAR-GST
Aryan Tradelink Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner challenges the act of blocking of credit ledger and its continuance beyond one year – Petitioner submits that in light of the mandate under Rule 86-A(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 , blocking of the electronic credit ledger shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of imposing such restriction.
Held: Without entering into the merits of the order blocking of the electronic credit ledger, in light of Rule 86-A(3), restriction in blocking of the electronic credit ledger cannot be extended beyond the period of one year from the date of imposing such restriction and accordingly, in light of blocking having been made on 21.01.2020, its continuance in the present instant is impermissible in law - It is declared that the action of the respondents in continuing the blocking of electronic credit ledger is set aside - Consequential orders and restoring credit to the electronic credit ledger to be made forthwith – Petition disposed of: High Court [para 5, 6]
- Petition disposed of: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1282-HC-KAR-GST
Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Grievance of the petitioners has been addressed to by the respondents by virtue of an Undertaking filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes, North Division, Bengaluru, which Undertaking is accompanied with Form GST PMT-03 as recorded in the order dated 07.04.2021 - Revenue counsel further submits that as regards the show cause notice dated 11.09.2020 bearing No. SCN No. 85/2020-21 BZU issued by Office of The Principal Additional Director, Directorate General Goods and Service Taxes (Intelligence), Bengaluru Zonal Unit as regards the purported ineligible availing of input tax credit, in light of the stand taken by the Department by way of Undertaking dated 07.04.2021, the question of reopening of the aspect of input tax credit availed by the petitioners, consequent to the petitioners taking benefit in terms of the Undertaking recorded in the order dated 07.04.2021, would not arise and there would be no further proceedings pursuant to such show cause notice in a manner adverse to the interests of the petitioners - Petitioners undertake that they would give up their right to claim interest in light of redressal of their grievances, is taken note of.
Held: Taking note of the order dated 07.04.2021 and the Undertaking of the Department as recorded on 07.04.2021 and the stand of the Department as regards the show cause notice dated 11.09.2020, no further grievance of the petitioner survives for redressal and accordingly further adjudication in the matter does not arise - Petition is disposed of: High Court [para 4]
- Petition disposed of: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1281-HC-MAD-GST
Sri Marg Human Resources Pvt Ltd Vs Principal Additional Director General
GST - Allegation is that the petitioner company had fraudulently availed input tax credit on fictitious invoices to discharge the GST liability; that approximately the fraud committed by the petitioner is for the sum of Rs.21 Crores and investigation is still under progress - Writ Petition has been filed challenging the attachment orders dated 12.01.2021 and 28.01.2021 issued u/s 83 of the Act, 2017 - Petitioner company submits that the respondents, by the impugned attachment orders, have completely strangled the business of the petitioner; that petitioner was employing about 15,000 employees with security guards who were deployed in various industrial units in and around Chennai and Karnataka; that during the pendency of the investigation, the respondents have already appropriated a sum of Rs.5.68 Crores, which were lying in the accounts of the petitioner company; that the Directors of the petitioner company were also arrested and they were released on bail subsequent to bail order dated 19.02.2021 in Crl.O.P.Nos . 2175 and 2176 of 2021 - Counsel for Revenue submits that submits that under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 , the respondents are entitled to order provisional attachment of any assets to protect the interest of the revenue; that it is open for the petitioner to move to the appropriate authority under Rule 159 of the CGST Rules, 2017 , against the impugned attachment orders; that the attachment orders merely freezes the power to debit the account and there is no restriction for receiving the amount; that the Directors of the petitioner company had breached the bail order dated 19.02.2021; that for the last few months, the customers/clients of the petitioner company have directly paid the salaries/wages to the employees including the amount due under the Provident Funds Act and, therefore, the continuance of the impugned attachment orders will be of no prejudice to the petitioner.
Held: Admittedly, an amount of Rs.5.68 Crores, which was lying in the account has been appropriated till date - The petitioner has also agreed to remit another sum of Rs.1 Crore - Thus, as against the proposed/estimated tax due involved i.e. Rs.21 Crores, the petitioner has already discharged a sum of Rs.5.68 Crores i.e. 27.05% - After all, there is a mechanism provided under the Act for proper adjudication of the tax due and determination under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act - Therefore, there is no meaning in attaching the bank accounts further - Respondents can issue notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 and thereafter, determine the amount due and recover the amounts - Bench finds sufficient reasons to interfere with the impugned attachment orders dated 12.01.2021 and 28.01.2021 - It is made clear that the attachment proceedings cannot be at the cost of right of provision under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India - On such deposit of Rupees One Crore, the impugned attachment orders shall stand vacated - The Respondents are directed to complete the investigation and issue appropriate show cause notice as expeditiously as possible, to protect the interest of the revenue - It is also open to the respondents to take steps for cancelling the bail order, in case, the Managing Director and the Director of the petitioner company have violated any of the conditions of the bail order dated 19.02.2021 - Writ Petition stands allowed: High Court [para 10, 12, 13]
- Petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1280-HC-DEL-GST
Mridul Tobie Inc Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the IGST [Rs.60,93,591/-] and cess [Rs.4,08,10,681/-] have not been refunded to it - Interim relief sought.
Held: Notice issued; matter is listed on 26.08.2021: High Court [para 3, 6]
- Matter listed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1279-HC-DEL-GST
Green Leaf Tobacco Products Vs Pr.CC
GST - Petitioner seeks refund of export benefits to the tune of Rs. 3,57,52,392/- along with interest, under Section 16 of Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 54 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 .
Held: Bench directs the Respondents concerned to decide the claim of refund of the Petitioner, details of which have been furnished in the writ petition, as early as possible and practicable, in accordance with law, rules, regulations and Government policies applicable to facts of the case and also keeping in mind the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. = 2002-TIOL-54-SC-CX-CB , preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order - Writ petition is disposed of: High Court [para 6]
- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT |
