Click to Nomination Visit: tiolawards.in

Cus - Adequate and ample opportunity has been given to petitioner but the petitioner has not come forward to pursue the matter, petition is dismissed for default/non-prosecution: HC

ST - Even though the invoice is in name of Mumbai address at the time of receipt of capital goods but subsequently when they had taken registration at Surat obviously the same document will be used for taking remaining amount of 50% of credit

VAT - Dealer will have to establish as matter of fact and fact so established in sequential way corresponds to HSN Code described in Customs Tariff Act, 1975: HC

GST - Since the petitioner's representations have not evoked any response from respondents, same are directed to consider the representations of petitioner and pass appropriate orders: HC

2021-TIOL-2370-HC-AHM-GST

Hardik Textiles Vs State of Gujarat

GST - The petitioner is seeking to approach this Court being aggrieved by fact that the eligible refund amount which was credited in wrong account due to inadvertent mistake of petitioner's consultant should not penalize the petitioner - The bank details are to be entered under RFD-05 - The petitioner also did not raise grievance immediately and made an application with reference to said issue after nearly three months - The amount which had gone to the wrong account of M/s. Meet Textiles had been refunded by way of DRC-03 under Section 73(5) by way of voluntary payment - It emerges that second time when the application had been made by petitioner, rejection has come as there is a technical glitch - Even by specifying that the refund is being claimed under head "others" system has not permitted the amount to be given by way of refund to petitioner - Undoubtedly, it was a mistake which was committed by consultant of petitioner and therefore, the third party namely M/s. Meet Textiles had been benefited where the amount had been deposited - The amount once again has gone back to the authority by way of DRC-03, hence, the only way out now for availing legitimate claim of petitioner is by depositing the amount in his account which he has mentioned - Let the refund amount be accordingly credited in bank account of petitioner, as it is not the fault of petitioner to be deprived of this amount of refund and the stand on the part of both the counsels of respondents also being fair, according to them, this is a technical glitch as the system itself does not permit it to happen, therefore, court is constrained to interfere - The process to be completed in four weeks period, lest it shall fetch interest at the rate of 12% from date of second application: HC

- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2369-HC-MAD-GST

Wipro Ltd Vs CGST & CE

GST - It is the case of petitioner that their credit was attached by respondents - Petitioner has sent two representations to the respondents, but it has not effected any response - Considering the fact that the petitioner's representations have not evoked any response from the respondents, respondents are directed to consider the representations of petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of forty five days: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2368-HC-KERALA-VAT

State of Kerala Vs Tiptop Furniture Mart

Whether dealer will have to establish as matter of fact and fact so established in sequential way corresponds to HSN Code described in Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - YES: HC

- Case remanded: KERALA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2367-HC-MAD-CUS

Piruka Impex Vs DCC

Cus - Pursuant to proceedings made in last listing, captioned matter has been listed under the cause list caption 'FOR DISMISSAL' - There is no representation for petitioner - The aforementioned proceedings make it clear that this is the fifth consecutive successive listing in which the petitioner has not chosen to come before this court and pursue the matter - The captioned writ petition and the miscellaneous petition are dismissed for default/non-prosecution: HC

- Writ petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-853-CESTAT-AHM

SD Material Handlers Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - The appellant initially requested for amendment for registration as except the change of address, there was no change in constitution of company or nature of service however, department has rejected their request therefore, they had no option except to obtain a fresh registration which they had obtained at Surat - As regard availment of credit of 50%, since the 50% of credit was due in year 2014-15 they have availed this credit in said year at Surat as their business activity was being carried out at Surat - Therefore, this cannot be treated as transfer of credit from Mumbai to Surat - Revenue also alleged that their credit of 50% is not on proper documents as documents were at the address of Mumbai - Appellant remained the same, it is only the change of location - Even though the invoice is in name of Mumbai address at the time of receipt of capital goods but subsequently when they had taken registration at Surat obviously the same document will be used for taking remaining amount of 50% of credit - Even though the appellant have taken registration in Surat but there is no transfer of business on account of change in ownership the registration taken in Surat is by appellant themselves - Therefore, Rule 10(2) clearly does not apply - As regard the allegation that appellant instead of showing the credit, shown opening balance, nothing wrong found in that because whether it is shown as opening balance or shown as credit the same amount of credit will be available to appellant - Appellant's taking credit of 50% on capital goods at Surat is absolutely legal and correct and the same cannot be denied - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT