|
2022-TIOL-859-HC-KOL-GST
Raj Kumar Singh Vs Asstt. Commissioner
GST - Petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the ground that the same has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to petitioners inspite of specific request made in their reply to SCN.
Held: It appears that though the Adjudicating Authority concerned has recorded that the impugned order has been passed after considering the reply filed by the petitioners but nowhere it appears that the petitioners' request for personal hearing was either considered or rejected - Counsel for Revenue is not in a position to contradict this admitted position - Impugned order dated 9th May, 2021 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Officer concerned to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within eight weeks - Petition is disposed of: High Court
- Petition disposed of: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-858-HC-MAD-GST
Quality Mart Vs Asstt. Commissioner (ST)
GST - Petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the recovery notice/attachment order dated 15.11.2021 - Petitioner submits that the assessing officer should have passed an order within three years from the due date of furnishing of annual return for the Financial Year to which the tax was paid or short paid or input tax credit was wrongly availed etc.; that since the impugned order has not been passed within the three years period, on the ground of limitation itself, the order is infirm - Counsel for respondent submits that the due date for furnishing the annual return for the FY 2017-18 was 30.09.2018 and if that date is taken into consideration, within the three years period i.e. 08.07.2021 itself the order is passed and hence it is saved by limitation.
Held: Insofar as the limitation point raised by the petitioner is concerned, as has been rightly pointed out by the counsel for Revenue, that, the three years period ends only on 30.09.2021 within which since the order dated 08.07.2021 has been passed, it is saved by limitation - Therefore, that point cannot be canvased in favour of the petitioner - Insofar as other merits of the case is concerned, the matter has to be necessarily gone into by the appellate authority before whom the petitioner can file appeal u/s 107 of the Act - Petition is dismissed: High Court [para 8, 9]
- Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-72-AAR-GST
Ultra Tech Suspension Pvt Ltd
GST - Since in commercial parlance, the goods in question are known as Nuts and Bolts namely U-bolt, Front Spring Bolt, and Spring Pin and not by any other name, as held by Supreme Court, the Classification of goods is to be determined by commercial identity test and not by functional test i.e. as to how they are referred to in the market by those who deal with them, be it for the purpose of selling, purchasing or otherwise, they are to be classified as a generic product - U-Bolt and Front Spring Bolt made up of Steel falls under the Tariff Heading 7318 15 00; Spring Pin made up of Steel falls under the Tariff Heading 7320 90 20 - Not classifiable under Chapter 87 - Supplies are taxable @18%: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2022-TIOL-71-AAR-GST
Mody Education Foundation
GST - Hostel Accommodation Charges per Hostel Seat provided by the Mody Education Foundation (MEF) to the students of Mody University of Science and Technology (MUST) having value of service upto Rs. 1000/- per day would be eligible for exemption under entry no. 14 of the Notification No. 12/2017-CTR - Word 'hostel' not being specifically mentioned in notification 12/2017-CTR , Sr. no. 14, implies that the same would be covered under the term 'Whatever name called' - Clarification given by CBIC in Circular No. 32/06/2018-GST dated 12th February 2018 relied upon: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR |
