GST - Pre-deposit, while filing appeals, cannot be made by debiting Electronic Credit ledger - appeals rightly rejected as defective: HC

GST - Output Tax cannot be equated with pre-deposit required to be made u/s 107: HC

Bail applications - Offences categorized and guidelines laid down for grant of bail: SC

MVAT Act - Delay and laches should be considered with reference to original cause of action and not date on which order is passed in compliance with court's direction - HC

2021-TIOL-2007-HC-ORISSA-GST

Jyoti Construction Vs DCCT & GST

GST - Petitioner has  challenged orders  passed by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal), Central Zone, Odisha rejecting the appeal filed by the Petitioner under Section 107(1) of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and holding that the appeals filed are defective since the Petitioner had made payment of the pre-deposit, being 10% of the disputed amount under the  IGST, CGST and SGST, by debiting its electronic credit ledger (ECRL) and did not pay it from the electronic cash ledger (ECL) and furnished the proof of payment of the mandatory pre-deposit and that this was in contravention of Section 49(3) of the OGST Act read with Rule 85 (4) of the OGST Rules, 2017.

Held: It is not possible to accept the plea of the Petitioner that “Output Tax”, as defined under Section 2(82) of the OGST Act could be equated to the pre-deposit required to be made in terms of Section 107(6) of the OGST Act - Further, the proviso to Section 41(2) of the OGST Act limits the usage to which the ECRL could be utilised - It cannot be debited for making payment of pre-deposit at the time of filing of the appeal in terms of Section 107(6) of the OGST Act - It is not, therefore, possible to accept the plea Section 107 (6) of the OGST Act is merely a “machinery provision” -  There is world of difference between an amount which is refundable and an amount which is liable to be paid as output tax - Here there is no amount refundable to the Petitioner which could be utilised for making of payment of the pre-de posit - Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the appellate authority in rejecting the Petitioner's contention that the ECRL could be debited for the purposes of making the payment of pre-deposit -  Court is of the view that the prayer of the Petitioner that the debiting of the ECRL made by it should be reversed is a separate  cause of action for which the Petitioner should independently seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law - The making of the pre-deposit by the Petitioner is not contingent upon the above reversal of the debit entry in the ECRL -  W rit petitions are dismissed: High Court  [para 14, 15, 16, 18, 19]

- Petitions dismissed: ORISSA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1997-HC-KAR-GST

Bangalore Biotech Labs Pvt Ltd Vs ACCT

GST - The petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to file revised Form GST TRAN-1 in accordance with provision of Rule 120A of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to file revised FORM GST TRAN-1 either electronically or manually on or before 10.10.2021 - However, the respondents are at liberty to verify the genuineness on the merits of claim of petitioner in accordance with law: HC

- Matter listed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1996-HC-KAR-GST

Adarsha Control And Automation Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - The petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to accept GST TRAN-1 filed manually - The respondent is directed to take on record GST TRAN-1 and to consider the same on or before 10.10.2021 - However, the respondents are at liberty to verify the genuineness of merits of claim of petition, in accordance with law: HC

- Matter listed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-250-SC-MISC

Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI

Offences - Offences have been categorized and guidelines are laid down for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and keeping in mind the statutory provisions - Trial Courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid guidelines while considering bail applications - Trial Court is not precluded from granting interim bail taking into consideration the conduct of the accused during the investigation which has not warranted arrest - It is not as if economic offences are completely taken out of the aforesaid guidelines but do form a different nature of offences and thus the seriousness of the charge has to be taken into account but simultaneously, the severity of the punishment imposed by the statute would also be a factor - SLP stands disposed of: Supreme Court

- Appeal disposed of: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2021-TIOL-1995-HC-MUM-VAT

E Land Apparels Ltd Vs State of Maharashtra

Whether delay and laches should be considered with reference to original cause of action and not date on which order is passed in compliance with court's direction – YES: HC.

- Assessee's Petition dismissed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-249-SC-ST-LB

CST Vs Vodafone India Ltd

ST - Common issue involved to be dealt with at the outset is about the interpretation of Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Export of Services-Rules, 2005 - Matters listed for final disposal on 23.11.2021: Supreme Court Larger Bench

- Matters listed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2021-TIOL-1998-HC-MAD-ST

CST Vs D And B Transunion Analytic And Decision Services Pvt Ltd

ST - The appeal has been filed against the order 2012-TIOL-1900-CESTAT-MAD on the file of Tribunal - Appellant sent a letter to the Registry seeking to list the appeal for withdrawal - Hence, when the case is called, a similar request is made to that effect - Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn: HC

- Appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT