DG of GST Intelligence Vs Ritesh Aggarwal
GST - Bail - It is established law that assessing the correctness of an order granting bail stand on a different footing from an assessment of an application of cancellation of bail - The CMM has failed to consider the accusations and material surfaced against the accused during investigation while passing the impugned order - Herein is not a simple case of tax dispute but claim of IGST refunds based on false, fabricated documents and fraudulent transactions, comprehended through a complex web of fictitious firms apparently created and managed by respondent/accused - He seems to be the mastermind of case crime, as has appeared from the gamut of facts that have immerged from investigation carried out so far - The complicity of respondent in case crime is apparent - To unearth the true facts of the case and persons involved into the case crime and to ensure that the accused/respondent is not able to exert his influence to thwart the proper and thorough investigation and also to trace the money trail, the bail ought to have not been granted to the accused/respondent at the stage of the case and his continuous detention was necessary in the interest of justice - The order under challenge granting bail to the respondent/accused is bad in law and suffers from serious legal infirmities - The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the bail granted to the accused/respondent Ritesh Aggarwal stands cancelled: HC
- Application allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1532-HC-AHM-GST
Nagri Eye Research Foundation Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner is a Charitable Trust and are running a medical store where medicines are sold at a lower rate and the motive of the trust is not profit - Petitioner as an applicant had sought a ruling from the AAR on the following questions viz. (1) Whether GST Registration is required for medical store run by Charitable Trust? & (2) Whether medical Store providing medicines at a lower rate amounts to supply of goods? - AAR [ 2020-TIOL-125-AAR-GST ] had concluded that the applicant is making taxable supply from its medical store and hence as and when aggregate turnover (of medicine) of applicant exceeds threshold limit as specified in sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the CGST Act, 2017, the applicant has to obtain registration under the relevant provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 - This ruling was upheld by the AAAR and hence the present petition - Petitioners vehemently submitted that both the lower authorities have failed to appreciate the fact that the activities carried on by the petitioner Trust by running a medical store could not be said to be a "business" within the meaning of Section 2(17) of the CGST Act, inasmuch such activities can neither be said to be a trade or commerce nor for any pecuniary benefit.
Held : [para 9 to 11]
+ There remains no doubt that every supplier who falls within ambit of Section 22(1) of the Act has to get himself registered under the Act. As per Section 7(1) of the Act, the expression 'supply' includes all forms of supply of goods and services or both, such as sale, transfer, barter etc. made or agreed to be made for consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business.
+ It is not disputed that the petitioners are selling the medicines, may be at a cheaper rate but for consideration in the course of their business. The submission of petitioner that such a sale could not said to be a "business" in view of the definition contained in Section 2(17) of the said Act cannot be accepted. As per the said definition, the 'Business' means any trade or commerce any trade, commerce, manufacture, profession, vocation, adventure, wager or any other similar activity, whether or not it is for a pecuniary benefit.
+ From a bare reading of the said definition, it clearly emerges that any trade or commerce whether or not for a pecuniary benefit, would be included in the term 'business' as defined under Section 2(17) of the said Act. Petitioner has failed to substantiate or justify his submission as to how such activity of selling medicines to the patients for consideration could not be said to a trade or commerce. For the purpose of "business" under Section 2(17) of the Act, it is immaterial whether such a trade or commerce or such activity is for pecuniary benefit or not.
+ Both the authorities have in detail considered the submissions and the issues raised by the petitioner Trust and held that the Medical Store run by the Charitable Trust would require GST Registration, and that the Medical Store providing medicines, even if supplied at lower rate would amount to supply of goods. The Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the said orders passed by the authorities.
-Petition dismissed :GUJARAT HIGH COURT |
