2022-TIOL-919-HC-AHM-GST
TKT Hightech Cast Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Gujarat GST
GST - Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondent Nos.01, 02 & 03 to allow the Petitioner the benefits of transitional credit of Rs.2,41,33,827/- by allowing them to file declaration electronically in Form GST TRAN-1 - It is the case of the writ applicant that the writ applicant company was facing financial constraints and the bank account of the writ applicant company was declared as NPA (Non-Performing Assets) by COSMOS Co-operative Bank Ltd. and in absence of sufficient staff, the writ applicant company could not file TRAN-1 on or before the notified date i.e. 27.12.2017 - Writ applicant, therefore, approached the respondent authority, however, the help desk of the respondent authority responded vide E-mail dated 08.04.2018 that the window for uploading TRAN -1 is closed - Writ applicant once again approached with a request letter dated 12.09.2018 addressed to the Commissioner of GST, Ahmedabad to consider his case for uploading the TRAN-1 Form in light of the Notification No. 48/2018 , dated 10.09.2018 - However, since there was no response, the present petition. Held: Rule 117 of the CGST Rules being directory in nature, the prescribed time limit for transitioning of credit would in no manner result in forfeiture of the rights of the writ applicants even though, when the credit is not availed within the period prescribed - Even otherwise, the period of three years as described by the High Court of Delhi [ 2020-TIOL-900-HC-DEL-GST ] to be a guiding principle for availing of such credit from the appointed date, the case of the writ applicant falls within the aforesaid period of three years - Writ application succeeds and is allowed - Bench directs the respondent authorities to permit the writ applicant to file Form GST TRAN-1, either by opening the online portal so as to enable the writ applicant to file declaration TRAN-1 electronically or to accept the same manually - The respondent authorities shall verify and process such Form in accordance with law within a period of two weeks: High Court [para 10, 11]
- Petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-918-HC-AHM-GST
Sridev Traders Vs State of Gujarat
GST - Petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned SCN and the impugned order of cancellation of registration dated 30.12.2021. Held: SCN is not tenable in eye of law inasmuch as the same is found without any material particulars, which a prudent person would be able to respond - Reason recorded by the respondent authority is a mere incorporation of the relevant ground appearing in the Rules framed thereunder - The show cause notice should have referred to any material particulars as to in what manner the authority has prima facie found that the registration of the writ applicant has been obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts - the order for cancellation of registration refers to the initiation of proceedings under Section 67(2) of the GGST Act, 2017 in respect of M/s. Sridev Traders, Rajkot - It further emerges that the respondent Authority while passing the said order of cancellation of registration had referred to and relied upon the letter dated 14.12.2021 addressed by the State Tax Officer(1), Enforcement, Division-9, Bhavnagar with regard to the investigation proceedings - Thus, the respondent Authority has proceeded to pass the order for cancellation of registration on new material or facts which were neither formed part of the show cause notice nor the same were disclosed to the writ applicant - The aforesaid action of the respondent authority is in breach of violation of principles of natural justice - The writ applicant has been deprived of the reasonable opportunity without putting to their notice about such allegations, more particularly when the cancellation of registration under the GGST Act results into civil and criminal action - Respondent authority has failed to adhere to the basic principles of natural justice and such action of the respondent authority is illegal and is required to be interfered with - Show cause notice dated 14.12.2021 as well as the consequential order dated 30.12.2021 are quashed and set aside - Matter remitted to the respondent Authority for denovo proceedings - GSTIN registration of the writ applicant is hereby directed to be restored: High Court [para 7 to 9]
- Matter remanded: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-917-HC-KOL-GST
Ramesh Kumar Patodia Vs CITI Bank NA
GST - Petitioner is holder of a valid Citi Bank Credit Card - He received an email communication on 21.02.2019 from the Bank offering an instant loan of Rs. 6,50,000/- at 13% interest above the credit limit - Petitioner took the offer and obtained a loan of Rs.6,50,000/- on his credit card - Upon receipt of the credit card statements of two successive periods, the petitioner detected that IGST @ 18% was charged on the initial interest as well as interest component of EMI - Petitioner by several letters protested against charging of IGST on the interest component of the EMI and requested the Bank to reverse the said IGST charges - Since the respondents did not take any steps for reversing the said IGST charges and continued to charge IGST, this writ petition is filed. Held: Maintainability - Principal objection of the respondents is that the writ petition against the bank, which is not a nationalised bank is not maintainable - Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India lays down that notwithstanding anything in Article 32, High Court shall have power throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any government, within those territories directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari or any of them for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by part III and for any other purpose - Thus, it is evident that the High Court has power to issue directions, orders or writs to any person or authority - Since the petitioner has prayed for a relief to compel the respondent bank to grant exemption as per the provisions of the relevant statute upon a declaration being made in that regard, the instant writ petition is maintainable [Supreme Court decision in Federal Bank Ltd. (2003) 10 SCC 733 relied upon] - It is not in dispute that the office of the respondent no.1 is beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court of Calcutta,however, in the credit card statements issued by the bank, it is mentioned that the place of supply is the State of West Bengal and the demand draft (of the loan amount) was despatched to the petitioner at his residential address which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court - Thus part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court - since the part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court, this court has no hesitation to hold that this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the instant writ petition: High Court [para 11, 12, 20, 21, 23] On Merits GST - The criteria for processing the loan, the manner in which the EMI of loan is reflected in the Credit Card statements and the charging of interest in case there is a shortfall in the payment of the amount due as well as the mode of payment all goes to prove that the service rendered by the Bank in extending the loan in question is nothing but a service pertaining to the said credit card -The expression “other than interest involved in credit card services” appearing under Serial No. 28 of the said notification carves out an exception by“excluding" the interest on credit card services from the purview of the said exemption notification -Since this Court has already held that the services rendered by the bank by way of extending loans to the petitioner in the instant case amounts to credit card services, the interest component of EMI of the said loan is nothing but interest involved in credit card services which is not exempted by notification no. 9/2017 -IT(R) -Court, therefore, holds that the interest component of EMI of loan advanced by the bank is not exempted under the said notification dated June 28, 2017 - Thus, the second issue is answered in the negative and against the petitioner - Writ petition is dismissed: High Court[26, 30 to 32, 35]
- Petition dismissed: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-79-AAR-GST
Coronation Arts Crafts
GST - Applicant has stated that they are one of the suppliers of printed leaflet product to M/s. Hindustan latex Ltd, a Government of India enterprise who in turn supply the said leaflet product along with their own manufactured rubber product namely ‘Condemn' (sic) - The leaflet product is supplied by their unit to the said customer charging 12% IGST and by classifying the supply under SAC heading 9989 - Applicant's customer has informed that some other suppliers are supplying such printed leaflet product charging 5% IGST classifying the same as supply of goods under Chapter heading 4901 of GST Tariff Act 2017, therefore, they have filed the present application seeking a ruling as to whether the manufacture and supply of printed leaflet using physical inputs owned by them (printing content being supplied by recipient) is classifiable as supply of goods or supply of services as per the provisions of GST Act; whether such printed leaflet product is classifiable under HSN heading 4901 or SAC code 9989 . Held: It is pertinent to note that this authority - 2020-TIOL-274-AAR-GST in an earlier instance in the case of M/s. Macro Media Digital Imaging Pvt. Limited (order upheld by AAAR - 2021-TIOL-13-AAAR-GST , under similar facts, has held that the supply of printed material is a "composite supply", when the content for printing is that of the recipient and the material for such printing are of the provider - Also, it was held that in such activity, 'Supply of printing' is the 'Principal supply' of the said 'composite supply' - Following Judicial discipline, Authority holds that in the case at hand, the supply made by the applicant to the recipient is a composite supply with 'Supply of Printing Service' as the Principal Supply - The supply of printing services on paper are classifiable under SAC 998912 - The principal supply being the 'Supply of Printing service', the composite supply is classifiable under SAC 998912 and the applicable rate on such supply is that applicable for such supply - The applicable rate of tax effective from 1st October 2021 is CGST @9% as per Sl.No.27 of Notification No. 11/2017 CT(Rate) Dated 28.06.2017: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
