|
2021-TIOL-2146-HC-P&H-GST
Gupta Spare Centre Vs UoI
GST - The petitioner sought directions to respondents to allow one time filing of revised Form GST TRAN 1 and GST TRAN 2 by either reopening the GSTN Portal or accepting the revised physical Form or accepting transitional Input Tax Credit claimed through GSTR 3B return in order to enable the petitioner to claim legitimate transitional credit in terms of Section 140 of CGST Act, 2017 r/w Section 140 of SGST Act, 2017 in order to claim the unreceived credit - Respondent is directed to decide the representation of petitioner by passing a speaking order within a period of three months: HC
- Petition disposed of: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-2145-HC-ORISSA-GST Krushna Chandra Samal Vs State of Odisha
GST - Office Memorandum dated 10th December, 2018 of the Finance Department prescribing guidelines for the implementation of GST in Works Contract in post-GST regime with effect from 1st July, 2017 - Petitioner prays for declaring the said OM as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and for quashing the same.
Held: All these prayers have been answered against the petitioner by the judgment dated 7th June 2021 in the case of Harish Chandra Majhi - 2021-TIOL-1293-HC- ORISSA-GST - Bench further notes that on a perusal of the said decision, it is found that the Court has dealt with a large number of grounds which are more or less similar to the points urged in the present petition - Court is not satisfied that any new ground has been made out requiring the Court to revisit its judgment in Harish Chandra Majhi (supra) - Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned petition - Hence the same is dismissed: High Court
- Petition dismissed: ORISSA
2021-TIOL-2144-HC-GUW-GST
Krit Kunal Dhawan Vs State of Assam
GST - A notice in the Form GST DRC-01 was issued against the petitioner which is a form under Rule 142(1)(a) of the AGST Rules - It is the contention of the petitioners that firstly the notice could not have been issued on the basis of certain reports in print and electronic media - Both the communications dated 08.10.2021 are assailed in the petition.
Held: Bench has taken note of the fact that apart from the print and electronic media being relied upon it has also been specifically stated in the Form GST DRC-01 that during investigation it was found that the taxpayers had utilised dubious ITC forms bearing the GSTN numbers - Such a view was formed because the petitioner had not provided appropriate material and document at the time of the investigation and, therefore, such Form GST DRC-01 was issued - Bench is of the view that ends of justice would be met if an opportunity is given to the petitioner taxpayer to appear before the respondent Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, Guwahati with all relevant materials that he may desire to rely upon and satisfy the authorities in their investigation - Accordingly, as agreed upon by the parties, the petitioner shall appear before the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, Guwahati on 08.11.2021 at 11.00 am and upon his appearance, the aforesaid authority shall give due audience to the petitioner and take on board all such relevant materials that he may produce as well as the contention that the petitioner may desire to raise - Upon completing the said procedure, the authority shall pass a reasoned order either accepting or rejecting the contention of the petitioner - The reasoned order to be passed shall prevail and till such reasoned order is passed, the Form GST DRC-01 both dated 08.10.2021 shall be kept in abeyance - In the event that the reasoned order is against the petitioner, a fresh Form GST DRC-01 may be issued and in doing so adequate time required under the law shall be given to the petitioner before taking any action - Writ petition stands disposed of: High Court
- Petition disposed of: GAUHATI HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-2143-HC-TELANGANA-GST
Bhagyanagar Copper Pvt Ltd Vs CBIC
GST/Cus - Writ Petition is filed for issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent - Principal Commissioner of Central Tax to grant the IGST refund of Rs.14,78,99,959/- along with applicable rate of interest; directing the 4th respondent - Joint Commissioner of Customs to grant All Industry Drawback of Rs.1,10,10,580/- and brand rate drawback of Rs.2,15,28,420/- by fixing drawback along with applicable rate of interest in terms of Section 75A of the Customs Act, 1962; and directing the 5th respondent - Director-General Analytics and Risk Management, New Delhi, to remove system alert and issue No Objection Certificate for exports made by the petitioner.
Held: It is not in dispute that the petitioner had effected zero rate supplies and would be eligible to claim refund of such Integrated tax paid on goods or services or both under Section 16(3)(b) of the IGST Act - Not only the export consignment of the petitioner has been verified as per the system alert, but the authorities also completed verification of the suppliers of the petitioner in L1 and L2 stage - Though in the counter-affidavit it is stated that out of 30 suppliers, 10 suppliers with proportion of ITC of Rs.3.32 crores, out of total ITC availed of Rs.44.92 crores, are identified as suspicious suppliers, the said suppliers and the value of ITC availed is less than 10% of the total ITC availed - Even if the claim of the respondents as to non-completion of verification of suppliers of the petitioner up to two levels is to be accepted, since, the proportion of such suspicious suppliers, the respondents ought to have granted provisional refund to the extent of 90% as provided under Section 54(6) read with Rule 91 of the CGST Rules, which the respondents failed to do - Further, it is also to be seen that in the verification report submitted with regard to L1 suppliers submitted by the jurisdictional authorities to the 5th respondent, none of the L1 suppliers of the petitioner, from whom it had purchased goods by paying applicable taxes under the GST law, are found to be suspicious - If the suppliers of the petitioner are found to be genuine, the petitioner is entitled to claim credit of the taxes paid on such purchases effected - The provisions of the Act do not mandate the petitioner to verify the genuineness of the suppliers of its supplier inasmuch as enough safeguards/mechanism are provided under the Act to recover the taxes, if not paid or wrong credit is availed by the petitioner's supplier or supplier's supplier - As no discrepancy has been found with regard to the suppliers of the petitioner, the refund claim by the petitioner cannot be denied to be processed on the ground that verification of the suppliers of the petitioner's supplier is pending - The reluctance on the part of the respondents in granting of refund to exporters upon completion of exports would result in taking away the incentive to export and would make the exports from the country unviable due to non-flow of funds in the form of refund assured under the Act - The consequence of inaction on the part of the respondents would result in the provisions of Section 56 of the CGST Act getting attracted, making the respondents liable to pay interest for such delayed refund either on provisional basis or otherwise - Action of the respondents, and in particular the 2nd respondent, in not granting refund of IGST paid by the petitioner on exports made during the period - 15.02.2021 to 21.05.2021, in a sum of Rs.14,78,99,959/- cannot be held to be valid and also the non-grant of All Industry Drawback claimed by the 4th respondent, cannot be sustained - Writ Petition is allowed and a Writ of Mandamus is issued directing the 2nd respondent to grant IGST refund on the zero rated supplies effected by the petitioner during the period - 15.02.2021 to 21.05.2021, as claimed, or on provisional basis as provided under Section 54(6) of the CGST Act r/w Rule 91 of the CGST Rules, by crediting such amount to the petitioner's account within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; the 4th respondent is also directed to grant All Industry Drawback to the petitioner, if the claim made by the petitioner is otherwise in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, read with the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017: High Court [para 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27]
- Petition allowed: TELANGANA HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-251-AAR-GST
Shital Tukaram Borade
GST - Applicant seeks a ruling as to whether the services provided by them to Samaj Kalyan Department, State Government of Maharashtra (Social Welfare Department) for residential accommodation of underprivileged girls is exempt from GST? and Whether TDS provisions will be applicable in case where the supply of services is exempt?
Held: Applicant has submitted that the Samaj Kalyan Vibhag of the Government of Maharashtra has taken the immovable property on rent from the applicant to house the girls from the backward class communities which can be considered as a welfare measure undertaken by the Government for the under-privileged section of the society - Other than making this statement, the applicant has not submitted any evidence or submissions to state as to how her/their activities are covered under Article 243G/243W of the Constitution - There are no submissions made to show that the impugned services are supplied by the applicant by way of any activity in relation to any function entrusted to a Panchayat under article 243G of the Constitution or in relation to any function entrusted to a Municipality under article 243W of the Constitution - Even though the applicant is supplying "Pure Services", in light of insufficient material on record, it is not possible for the Authority to find whether the said services are supplied by the applicant by way of any activity in relation to any function entrusted to a Panchayat under article 243G of the Constitution or in relation to any function entrusted to a Municipality under article 243W of the Constitution - Held that renting of immovable property services by the applicant is not entitled for exemption under the provisions of Entry No. (3) Of Notification No. 12/2017-CT(R) - Impugned services supplied by the applicant are liable to tax and, therefore, not exempt - Thus the TDS provisions under the relevant section 51 of the GST Act are applicable in the subject case: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR |
|
