2021-TIOL-1556-HC-AHM-GST
Sushant Steel Vs State of Gujarat
GST - The petitioner relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in case of M/s. Radha Krishan Industries 2021-TIOL-179-SC-GST submitted that they having filed the appeal under section 107 of CGST Act, 2017 against the order of assessment and also having paid the amount of pre-deposit as required under sub-section (6) of section 107 of the said Act, the provisional attachment made under section 83 of said Act cannot be continued - Without going into the merits of the other issues, the provisional attachment in respect of bank account of the Union Bank of India and Canara Bank is removed: HC
- Petition partly allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1554-HC-AP-GST
Godway Furnicrafts Vs State of Andhra Pradesh
GST - Composition Levy - The petitioner claims to have opted for paying tax under composite scheme as per the procedure contemplated under Section 10(1) of GST Act - Petitioner has been filing GST returns and Form GSTR-IV from the quarter ending September, 2017 and the taxes were paid as per the said scheme, which postulates payment of 1% of GST on the turnover - Department accepted the taxes paid/returns filed, till the date of issuance of show cause notice by the 3rd respondent on 14.2.2018, wherein the action of the petitioner claiming payment of tax under the composite scheme was rejected on the ground that the turnover of petitioner for the "previous year" under the VAT regime was Rs.2.09 crores - Explanation given was rejected on 26.7.2018 in Form-GST CMP-07 - Consequently, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice on 27.7.2018, in terms of Section 74 and Section 10(5) of the State GST Act, stating that they are liable to pay SGST @14% and CGST @14% totalling Rs.15,93,708/-from the date of initial registration i.e. from 1.7.2017 -Demand was confirmed on 19.9.2018 along with interest and penalty -As the appeal was rejected on 12.2.2020, the present writ petition came to be filed in the month of June, 2020.
Held:
+ In the instant case, the dispute insofar as interpretation of the word 'previous financial year' arose only for the financial year 2017-2018, as the GST regime commenced from 1.7.2017.
+ If the intention of the legislature was that the turnover of the financial year under GST regime is only to be taken into consideration, then there would have been a clarification of the word 'preceding financial year'. Section 10(1) of the Act would not carry any meaning if such an interpretation, as sought by the petitioner, is given, namely, the turnover in the VAT regime has to be excluded while computing the tax liability.
+ If such a narrow interpretation to Section 10(1) is given, as observed earlier, many of the businessmen would not only escape payment of GST for the year 2017-2018, though the self-declaration made is incorrect or false, but also end up paying minimum GST though their turn over is on a higher side. + It is to be noted here that word 'preceding financial year' is appearing at more than one place in Section 10 itself, hence, it cannot be said that there was any error in usage of the word "preceding" in Section 10.
+ The legislature was conscious enough, when the word 'preceding' was used before the word 'financial year' in Section 10(1) and also in the second proviso to Section 10(1)(c), while extending benefits under a scheme.
+ The legislature in its wisdom observed that such a benefit can be extended to those whose turnover in the previous financial year does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs. Therefore, the word 'preceding' appearing before the word 'financial year' cannot be ignored and if done, one would doing mockery of the words 'financial year does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs'. + Therefore, to fix a parameter for extending the benefits under the scheme and for payment of less tax in case of manufacturers and for those engaged in making supplies, the legislature thought it fit to take into account the turnover of the previous financial year.
+ Insofar as the financial year 2017-2018 under GST regime is concerned, the preceding financial year would be 2016-2017 under the VAT regime.
+ The collection of tax under the GST Act, 2017 is not in addition to the provisions of VAT, but, this is being introduced as a substitute to VAT Act to deal with both goods and services, so as to maintain uniformity across the length and breadth of the country. This has been introduced to meet the requirements under the recommendations of the GST council, in which all the States and Union territories are the stakeholders.
+ Bench finds no illegality in taking into consideration the previous year's turnover (under VAT regime) for the purpose of extending benefits under the composite scheme or for collecting taxes and penalty. [para 15, 16]
- Writ Petition dismissed: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT |
