2021-TIOL-1845-HC-AHM-GST

Dharam Enterprise Vs CCGST & CE

GST - The petitioner is engaged in business of real estate and is undertaking construction of residential building - The notfn 03/2019-CT was issued by Government where the tax payers having ongoing construction projects were given one time option to continue paying GST at 12% and claim Input Tax Credit thereafter - Such taxpayers opt for said scheme in prescribed manner and time - According to petitioner, he had inadvertently applied for cancellation of registration in Form REG-16 and the reason for cancellation was "ceased to be liable to pay tax" - Such order of cancellation was issued by respondent - It is the grievance on the part of petitioner that he filed an application for revocation of cancellation of registration in Form GST REG-21 along with substantive documents and evidences - No response has been received from the respondent and therefore, he sent a reminder letter which had also insisted on giving effect to O-I-A passed by Commissioner (A) - Noticing that for giving an effect to the O-I-A in a time bound manner, many attempts are made on the part of petitioner, however, his request has not been attended nor redressed by the respondents - Respondents are directed to comply with the directions of Commissioner (A).

- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1844-HC-RAJ-GST

Maruti Castings Vs UoI

GST - The matter comes up on an application filed by respondents under Article 226(3) of Constitution of India seeking vacation of interim order - It is submitted by respondents that the directions of Court that the petitioner shall not be insisted for submitting the Bank guarantee is contrary to the provisions of Section 67(6) of CGST Act, 2017 r/w Rule 140 of CGST Rules, 2017 - The action of authorities, apparently, is two fold; on account of allegations of one M/s Krishna Enterprises being a bogus firm and supplying fake invoices without supplying the raw material physically and on account of inspection carried out by authorities at the principal place of business and additional places of business of petitioner firm - It is claimed by respondents, based on the 'Panchnama' that physical stocks available at the principal place of business/additional places of business did not match with the books of petitioner during course of inspection - The emphasis laid by petitioner that as the goods liable to be confiscated or documents or books or things were not secreted, provisions cannot be invoked, is premature - Consequently, at this stage, prima facie it cannot be said that the seizure is illegal for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that provisions of Section 67 (6) of the Act would have no application - The plea raised regarding lack of jurisdiction also apparently cannot be countenanced while dealing with the application seeking vacation/modification of interim order - Admittedly, the petitioner himself applied under Section 67(6) of the Act seeking release of seized goods based on which the order dated 11/5/2021 was issued and as such passing of the said order by respondents also cannot be faulted - Application filed by respondents under Article 226(3) of Constitution is allowed - The order dated 21/5/2021 is modified to the extent that besides the surety bond of the equivalent amount of value of goods by the petitioner, it would be required of the petitioner to furnish security in the form of bank guarantee in terms of Section 67 (6) of the Act and Rule 140 of the Rules for release of the seized goods: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT