Click to Nomination Visit: tiolawards.in

2021-TIOL-2168-HC-AHM-GST

New India Biz Chem Pvt Ltd Vs ACST

GST - The petitioner sought a direction against respondent to restore their registration under Goods and Service Tax Act - There has been a self cancellation of registration on the part of petitioner, which has made him ineligible for online appeal, which otherwise is permissible under Section 107 of CGST Act - Section 30 also provides for revocation of cancellation of registration for which according to petitioner the necessary communication have already provided to the authority concerned - The difficulty on the part of petitioner is that the petitioner if is not allowed to rectify the return in form of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B on or before the due date of filing of return under Section 39 of CGST Act, the recipient will not be in a position to avail the input tax credit even though the taxes on such transactions have already been paid to the Government by Chalan - Noticing the short time before redressal is necessary as has been made-out on account of provisions of CGST and as the appeal is already filed physically, number which have not been given nor is reply to the communication has been made by petitioner, it is directed that let the request of petitioner made by way of two communications be replied to which is for the purpose of revocation of self cancellation of registration made by petitioner - That the respondent no.2 shall dispose of the appeal bearing in mind the time line of 30th September, 2021, which would not permit utilisation of input tax credit beyond the period of one year - In the eventuality of giving technicality, respondent no.2 shall guide in writing to enable the petitioner to prefer the appeal online within a short period of two weeks: HC

- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2167-HC-KERALA-GST

Rijas AJ Vs STO

GST - The main contention raised by petitioner is that of violation of principles of natural justice in as much as, he had not been granted an opportunity of filing an objection and personal hearing - A SCN was issued to petitioner under Section 74 (1) of CGST/SGST Act, 2017 which is stated to have been served on 12.08.2021 - However, thereafter, the explanation as sought for was not filed by petitioner - It is the case of petitioner that due to Covid related issues, petitioner was laid up and even hospitalized as a result of which he could not file his objections to the notice served upon him - It is also pointed out that, had an opportunity been granted to him to file a proper objection, the assessment order would not have been issued in the nature it has been done - Same had been issued without giving a breathing time to petitioner - The Supreme Court had extended all periods of limitation till 02.10.2021 taking into consideration, the specific issues relating to Covid - In such circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioner had been granted sufficient opportunity to reply to the notice - The claim of petitioner that he had time till 02.10.2021 as directed by Supreme Court cannot also be lost sight of - Impugned order is set aside - However, petitioner shall file an objection not later than 30.10.2021 and the respondent shall hear the petitioner on 10.11.2021 and pass appropriate orders as early as possible: HC

- Writ petition allowed: KERALA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2169-HC-KERALA-CUS

Modi Trade Links Vs CC

Cus - The petitioner sought a direction to respondents to finalize the provisional assessments, initiated pursuant to the import of goods, by them as per the bills of entry - It is contended that the time limit for finalisation of provisional assessment is stipulated as two months under the Regulations and already more than six months have elapsed without such finalisation - The revenue submitted that there is no delay on the part of respondents - It was also submitted that notice was issued to petitioner seeking production of certain documents and that if the documents sought for were produced, assessment could have been completed earlier - Petitioner submitted that the documents sought for by respondents had already been submitted and that notwithstanding the earlier production of such documents, he is willing to produce the documents sought for once again, immediately - Revenue is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders finalising the provisional assessments, pursuant to bills of entry within a period of 30 days from the date of production of documents: HC

- Writ petition allowed: KERALA HIGH COURT