2022-TIOL-1102-HC-AHM-GST
Torrent Power Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner prayed to direct the authorities to grant refund of amount of GST and interest thereon, which was paid by them in view of Entry 10 of Notfn 10 of 2017 - With the commencement of levy of GST under law w.e.f. 1.7.2017, Notfn 8 of 2017 provided that IGST at the rate of 5% shall be levied on inter-state supply of services when goods are transported in a vessel - Another Notfn 10 of 2017 came to be issued notifying that in respect of services supplied by a person located in non-taxable territory by way of transportation of goods by vessel from a place outside India upto the Custom Clearance Station in India, entire IGST shall be paid on reverse charge basis by importer - The corrigendum was issued - It was provided therein that IGST shall be collected at the rate of 10% of CIF value - While various contentions are raised in petition, it is stated that aforementioned Notfns 8 and 10 of 2017 r/w corrigendum came up for consideration for their validity before this court - This court in Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. 2020-TIOL-164-HC-AHM-GST held the said notifications to be unconstitutional and ultra vires the statute - Said decision has been followed in Gokul Agro Resources Ltd. 2020-TIOL-691-HC-AHM-GST , Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd. 2020-TIOL-1458-HC-AHM-GST and Comsol Energy Private Limited 2021-TIOL-1334-HC-AHM-GST - Similar issue came up for consideration before co-ordinate Bench in ADI Enterprises 2022-TIOL-857-HC-AHM-GST , wherein question was about refund of IGST paid pursuant to aforementioned Notifications - The court directed authorities to refund amount of IGST already paid by applicants pursuant to Entry 10 of Notfn 10 of 2017 - Claim for refund of petitioner towards IGST is liable to be favourably considered - Competent authority shall verify the amount of refund and grant such refund of amount of IGST paid by petitioner pursuant to Entry No. 10 of notification within eight weeks along with statutory rate of interest: HC
- Petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1101-HC-AHM-GST
Sandesh Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner prayed to direct the authorities to grant refund of amount of GST and interest thereon, which was paid by them in view of Entry 10 of Notfn 10 of 2017 - With the commencement of levy of GST under law w.e.f. 1.7.2017, Notfn 8 of 2017 provided that IGST at the rate of 5% shall be levied on inter-state supply of services when goods are transported in a vessel - Another Notfn 10 of 2017 came to be issued notifying that in respect of services supplied by a person located in non-taxable territory by way of transportation of goods by vessel from a place outside India upto the Custom Clearance Station in India, entire IGST shall be paid on reverse charge basis by importer - The corrigendum was issued - It was provided therein that IGST shall be collected at the rate of 10% of CIF value - While various contentions are raised in petition, it is stated that aforementioned Notfns 8 and 10 of 2017 r/w corrigendum came up for consideration for their validity before this court - This court in Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. 2020-TIOL-164-HC-AHM-GST held the said notifications to be unconstitutional and ultra vires the statute - Said decision has been followed in Gokul Agro Resources Ltd. 2020-TIOL-691-HC-AHM-GST , Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd. 2020-TIOL-1458-HC-AHM-GST and Comsol Energy Private Limited 2021-TIOL-1334-HC-AHM-GST - Similar issue came up for consideration before co-ordinate Bench in ADI Enterprises 2022-TIOL-857-HC-AHM-GST , wherein question was about refund of IGST paid pursuant to aforementioned Notifications - The court directed authorities to refund amount of IGST already paid by applicants pursuant to Entry 10 of Notfn 10 of 2017 - Claim for refund of petitioner towards IGST is liable to be favourably considered - Competent authority shall verify the amount of refund and grant such refund of amount of IGST paid by petitioner pursuant to Entry No. 10 of notification within eight weeks along with statutory rate of interest: HC
- Petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1100-HC-MAD-GST
Sridhar Vs Supdt. of GST
GST - Petition has been filed to direct respondent not to harass the petitioner during enquiry in connection with case of Kalki Traders - Under production of summons, petitioner is forced to give an undertaking to pay tax, whereas revenue submitted that despite several opportunities were given, petitioner has not produced any document to substantiate his case - The term harassment is so subjective which cannot be encapsulated in objective criterion - The petitioner having given a complaint is bound to cooperate with Police for enquiry - Admittedly, enquiry is pending - Without cooperating with Police, they cannot seek such a blanket direction - The Police shall issue notice within two weeks for causing appearance of petitioner, for enquiry and after enquiring the petitioner, Police may either register a complaint, if any cognisable offence is made out or close the complaint: HC
- Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
