2021-TIOL-2068-HC-MAD-GST
Balaji Traders Vs STO
GST - Petitioner submits that a summary of show cause in form GST-DRC-01 under rule 142(1) has been generated/uploaded electronically on 04.06.2020 and without giving any slightest breathing time to the petitioner assessee to respond, the impugned assessment order has been passed.
Held: Uploading or serving of summary of show cause in Form GST-DRC-01 under Rule 142(1) is not a mere formality, but it is mandated under the Rule, so that the Assessee would have a chance of getting summary of show cause and respond to the same - Without giving such a breathing time, on the very same day, that is, the date on which GST-DRC-01 notice, that is, summary of notice was uploaded, the impugned order was passed, therefore, on that ground, Court feels that the impugned order cannot be sustained - impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration - If notice has already been issued, summary of such show cause in form GST-DRC-01 shall be freshly uploaded, breathing time be given to petitioner to respond with available records and after giving an opportunity of hearing, a fresh assessment order can be passed in the manner known to law - Writ petition is disposed of: High Court [para 4, 5]
- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-2067-HC-ALL-GST
Vision India Services Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner challenges the order dated 06.08.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeal) - Petitioner submits that no Tribunal has been constituted by the Central government as envisaged in s.109 of the UP GST Act, 2017 and, therefore, the present writ petition is being filed.
Held: Revenue counsel is granted three weeks' time to file their counter affidavits - Bench observes that the Division Bench in the case of Torque Pharmaceuticals P Ltd. - 2021-TIOL-322-HC-ALL-GST has inter alia directed the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 to ensure that the State Bench and the Area Benches of the Appellate Tribunal (Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal) in the State of Uttar Pradesh are made functional as far as possible from 01.04.2021 - Bench, therefore, directs that the respondents, in their counter-affidavit, specifically state as to what action has been taken by them in compliance of the directions given in the Torque Pharmaceuticals case (supra) - Bench notes that the Appellate Tribunal is the last fact finding authority and the aggrieved persons are deprived of their valuable statutory right due to non-availability of that forum - Bench further makes it clear that if no satisfactory reply/compliance to the directions is reflected in the counter affidavit, the Court may be constrained to summon the authorities concerned - Matter to be listed after three weeks: High Court
- Matter listed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-2063-HC-KERALA-GST
Mini Premjit Vs STO
GST - The limited prayer in petition is to dispose of the appeal filed under Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017 in a time bound manner and to defer proceedings pursuant to impugned order till the appeal preferred by petitioner is considered - The respondent was considering the question whether the activities undertaken by petitioner was in the nature of works contract service or a manufacture and sale of goods under the Act - If it was the former, petitioner was liable to pay tax under Section 9(1) while if it was the latter, she would be eligible to opt for composition under Section 10 of the Act - In order, it was concluded that petitioner was engaged in supply of works contract service from 01.07.2017 and therefore denied the option of petitioner to pay tax under Section 10 in lieu of tax payable under Section 9(1) for the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019 - The order does not contemplate any payment of tax, fine or default - Hence, appeal preferred by petitioner against said order can be considered without there being any need for a deposit as contemplated under Section 107(6) of the Act - Respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of two months - Until such a decision is taken, all proceedings pursuant to Exts.P3 and P4 shall be kept in abeyance: HC
- Writ petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-2062-HC-KERALA-GST
Dantara Jewellers Vs State of Kerala
GST - The petitioner's claim for refund of taxes paid under Central Goods and Services Tax as well as State Goods and Services Tax have been refused - The reason for rejection is that the amount of tax paid at the first instance was through a temporary account and that since the temporary account is no longer available, the refund cannot be granted through that temporary account - According to revenue, these are all the glitches that are occurring on account of transition phase of CGST Act - However, it is fairly conceded that petitioner is entitled for refund of the amount and that the respondents are taking earnest steps to refund the amount without fail in a time bound manner - The conduct of respondents is not appreciable, still taking into consideration the transition phase of new statute and temporary glitches that are occurring as well as the fair submission made by revenue, respondents are directed to refund the amount within a period of 30 days - All the technical glitches that may occur in between, shall not stand in the way of ultimate relief of grant of refund to the petitioner as otherwise the sanctity of the whole scheme of section 129 of State Goods and Services Tax Act will lose the confidence of the assessees to deposit the amount as contemplated under section 129 of State Goods and Services Tax Act, will be affected - To enable the refund of the tax as directed, impugned order is set aside: HC
- Writ petition allowed: KERALA HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-2061-HC-MAD-GST
Pr. Addl. Director General DGGI Vs Sri Marg Human Resources Pvt Ltd
GST - What was put to challenge was only the order of provisional attachment and statutory machinery provides for a mechanism for filing objections against such provisional attachment - The respondent appears to have understood the factual and legal provisions in a proper manner and has given a representation/objection, dated 18.03.2021, seeking to lift the order of attachment under Section 83 of CGST Act - This application is undoubtedly an application to be reckoned under Rule 159(5) of CGST Rules - The respondent has failed to comply with conditions imposed by this Court while granting bail vide order dated 19.02.2021 - No doubt, the respondent have preferred SLP before Supreme Court in which, notice has been ordered - Thus, as on date, respondent have not complied with the order passed by this Bail Court and the objections filed under Rule 159(5) of CGST Rules have not been disposed of by passing a reasoned order - It will be too early for the Court to make an observation that there is no meaning in attaching the Bank Account further - It is too early for the Court to adjudicate as to whether at all the future receivables, if any, could be attached because, the statutory Rule provides for a procedure, where the person whose Bank Account has been attached, can seek for lifting of such attachment - Thus, the respondent, having sought for lifting the attachment by filing representation/objection ought to have pursued the same - Without pursuing the said objections, a challenge to the provisional attachment order has to be held to be premature - Thus, court is inclined to interfere with the order passed in writ petition - Respondent is directed to submit fresh objections in terms of Rule 159(5) of CGST Rules, within three days - On such objections being filed, appellant/appropriate authority shall consider the objections and pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the respondent within a period of seven days therefrom: HC
- Writ petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-2060-HC-AHM-GST
Star Enterprise Vs State of Gujarat
GST - The petitioner is the owner of goods and it is his case that his vehicle and goods both have been seized by GST Authorities and when the goods were being transported in alleged contravention of the Act and Rules, order is passed of detention under GST MOV 10 and as the matter is at the stage of GST MOV 10, Court would not like to enter into the merits of matter - However, court have taken note of serious concern raised by petitioner of provisional release of goods and vehicle prior to moving of such stage of MOV - The application preferred by petitioner shall need to be considered by authority for this being the goods in transit on applying the provisions of section 67(6) of the Act - Request shall be made by petitioner to consider such provisional release - The period of two weeks shall be allowed before officer concerned chooses to pass the order of confiscation in form of GST MOV 11 - Since the hearing is scheduled tomorrow, it is directed to first consider the application for release of goods and vehicle in accordance with law: HC
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT |
