|
2022-TIOL-470-HC-DEL-GST
Global Enterprises Vs CCGST
GST - Petition is directed against order dated 26.03.2021 wherein the petitioner's current account maintained with Axis Bank Limited stands frozen - The petitioner's account was frozen for first time via provisional attachment order dated 19.05.2020, which was, concededly, quashed by this court via order 2021-TIOL-716-HC-DEL-GST - Petitioner's grievance is that immediately, after this Court had quashed the earlier provisional attachment order on 22.03.2021, a fresh order was passed on 26.03.2021 - Proceedings under Section 74 of CGST Act, 2017 are no longer pending, as an adjudication order has been passed on 08.09.2021 - Petitioner has preferred an appeal against order dated 08.09.2021, and deposited 10 per cent of tax demanded by revenue - The impugned order dated 26.03.2021 has lost its efficacy, and, therefore, the attachment should stand lifted: HC
- Writ petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-482-HC-KERALA-GST Greenlights Power Solutions Vs STO
GST - Petitioner carries on the business in electrical contract works - During course of transportation, goods were intercepted and detained under section 129 of the Act on noticing an irregularity in e-way bill - Though the goods were being transported on 02-03-2021, invoice mentioned the date as 03.02.2021 - According to petitioner, error occurred due to the default computer formatting system, instead of day-month-year formatting for Indian system, computer-generated bill provided for a month-day-year format - Due to irregularity in invoice, goods were detained and tax and penalty was demanded - All other details in invoice and e-way bill including nature of goods transported, details of consignor and consignee, GSTIN of supplier and recipient, place of delivery, invoice number, value of goods, HSN code, vehicle number tallied and had no discrepancy - Thus the error noticed is insignificant and not of any consequence for invoking power conferred under section 129 of the Act to impose tax and penalty - Imposition of tax and penalty upon petitioner to the extent imposed in impugned order is perverse and illegal, revenue is directed to reconsider the same in the light of Circular 64/38/2018 and observations in R.K.Motors 2019-TIOL-431-HC-MAD-GST and issue fresh orders, after granting an opportunity of hearing to petitioner: HC
- Writ petition allowed: KERALA HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-481-HC-KERALA-GST
Money And Company Vs ACST
GST - Petitioner challenges the order of assessment alleging the short assessment and input tax credit wrongly availed - The grievance of petitioner is that, the provisions of Section 42(3) r/w Rule 36 of CGST Rules has not been complied with by assessing officer while issuing order of assessment - Petitioner also raised a contention that a reasonable opportunity of hearing was not granted before issuing impugned order, thereby violating principles of natural justice - Petitioner has an effective remedy before appellate authority - The circumstances of case, including the grant of opportunity for hearing before issuing impugned order, does not warrant an interference of this Court under Article 226 of constitution of India: HC
- Writ petition dismissed: KERALA HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-480-HC-AHM-GST
Sing Traders Vs State of Gujarat
GST - The applicant is registered under Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - A SCN was issued in Form GST REG-17/31 under Section 29 of CGST Act, 2017 r/w Rule 22(1) of CGST Rules, 2017 - On bare perusal of contents of SCN as well as impugned order, it is found that the said SCN is absolutely vague, bereft of any material particulars and impugned order is also vague and a non speaking order - Matter remitted to respondent for denovo proceedings in accordance with law - The GST registration stands revived : HC
- Matter remanded: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-43-AAR-GST
Aakash Food Products Pvt Ltd
GST - Applicant company is a flour miller, engaged in providing services of crushing wheat provided by the State Government, into fortified atta which in turn is supplied by the State Government through Public Distribution System - It is further submitted that the ownership of wheat or atta is never transferred to the applicant company - Applicant seeks a ruling as regards rate of tax on such supply as the value therefor.
Held : No ruling is given for the instant case since the questions raised in the instant application is a subject matter which is found to be pending before the Calcutta High Court in case of the applicant - first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 98 of the GST Act refers - Application rejected: AAR
- Application rejected: AAR
2022-TIOL-42-AAR-GST
Nathmull Bhagchand Jain
GST - Applicant submits that he is an agent of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) and is engaged in the distribution of Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO) for domestic purposes to fair price dealers - The applicant procures SKO directly from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (IOCL) and supplies the same as per instruction of Government of West Bengal at a sale price which is also fixed by the Government - The State Government allows some commission on different heads like agent commission, agent transport charges, agent stationery charges, compensation of handling and evaporation loss over the basic purchase price - It is submitted by the applicant that he has been charging output tax on the total consideration received, however, the Dist. Controller, Food and Supplies has issued an instruction according to which the applicant is now required to charge GST @ 5% only on the base price of Kerosene and on other charges like agent's commission, agent's transport charges, stationery charges, compensation on handling & evaporation loss, no GST is to be charged – Applicant seeks a ruling on the said issue and as to whether he falls under the category of ‘fair price shop'.
Held: A fair price shop is licensed to sell public distribution commodities against ration documents i.e., a fair price shop supplies S.K. Oil, along with other public distribution commodities, to the ration card holders only – since the applicant procures S.K. Oil from the Oil Marketing Company and supplies the same to the MR Dealers (ration dealers), they cannot be regarded as a 'fair price shop' - Value of supply, as per clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 15, shall include 'incidental expenses, including commission and packing, charged by the supplier to the recipient of a supply and any amount charged for anything done by the supplier in respect of the supply of goods or services or both at the time of, or before delivery of goods or supply of services', therefore, in respect of supply of goods, any amount charged for anything done by the supplier at the time of, or before delivery of goods shall be a part of the value of supply – Inasmuch as Tax would be levied on the entire value of supply: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR |
