2022-TIOL-1127-HC-MP-GST
Dhara Enterprises Vs Appellate Authority & Joint Commissioner (ST)
GST - Petitioner is engaged in business of Ferrous waste and scrap - He was served with a notice under Section 74(1) of the Act of 2017 - Said notice ensued in passing of an order by which tax liability was imposed upon petitioner along with penalty - Apparently, petitioner was well aware about transaction for which notice was issued to it inasmuch as, their reply contained in Annexure R/2 filed with return is unequivocal and makes it crystal clear that petitioner was well aware that transaction pertaining to M/s V.K. Enterprises, Chhatarpur was under scanner - Therefore, petitioner's submission in petition is grossly misconceived, inasmuch as he was in knowledge of fact that petitioner had availed benefit of ITC - Thus, transactions with M/s V.K. Enterprises were being inquired into by respondents, but still having submitted the reply of notice, petitioner did not disclose this fact in his memorandum of appeal, which is contained in Annexure P/3 of petition - If entire appeal is perused, same would reveal that petitioner having already submitted its reply disclosing the transactions with M/s V.K. Enterprises, failed to mention the facts as regards transactions with M/s V.K. Enterprises in his memorandum of appeal - Thus, apparently, petitioner has made futile attempt to lay foundation by raising a ground that in notice, he was not informed regarding transactions, which in eyes of respondents were questionable or doubtful - Thus, petition is grossly misconceived - Petitioner was within the knowledge of fact that their transactions with M/s V.K. Enterprises were under scanner and thus, there is no substance in petition and accordingly same stands dismissed with cost of Rs.2000/- in favour of MPSLSA within 60 days failing which this case be listed as PUD for execution qua cost: HC
- Writ petition dismissed: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1126-HC-MAD-GST
Colgate Palmolive India Ltd Vs Asstt. Commissioner (ST)
GST - Impugned order being MOV-06, detains (details of vehicle in question) alleging that same was not covered by valid documents, however petitioner would deny the allegations made - The provisions of Section 129 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 dealing with detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit, permit the release of goods upon payment of penalty, equal to 200 percent - Petitioner is willing to furnish a bank guarantee in terms of provisions of Section 129(1)(a) of the Act and it is submitted that, on instructions, nothing stands in way of respondent accepting the bank guarantee - Thus, petitioner is granted liberty to furnish bank guarantee in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the Act, upon furnishing of which impugned order will stand quashed - Consignment in question will be released within 48 hours from time and date when bank guarantee is furnished to respondent: HC
- Writ petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1125-HC-JHARKHAND-GST
Bluestar Malleable Pvt Ltd Vs State of Jharkhand
GST - Petitioner challenges the letter dated 6th November 2018 issued by the respondent No. 3-Superintendent whereby they have been called upon to pay interest for a sum of Rs.72,49,126/- on account of alleged irregular input tax credit taken by it on 24th August 2017 and reverted on 13th August 2018 - Petitioner has further sought declaration that it is not liable to pay interest for such mistake in filing GSTR-3B for the month of July 2017 wherein inadvertently they had included the transitional credit amount of Rs.3,11,43,255/- again though it was filed in GSTR TRAN-1 as transitional credit in terms of Section 140 of the Act - It is specific case of the petitioner that the said amount of transitional credit mistakenly mentioned in form GSTR-3B for July 2017 was never utilized by the petitioner company against the output tax liabilities arising out of daily business transactions - Petitioner has sought protection from coercive action. Held : The only question which falls for consideration is - "whether liability of interest under Section 50 of the JGST Act can be raised without initiating any adjudication proceeding either under Section 73 or 74 of the JGST Act in the event assessee has raised a dispute towards liability of interest" - As held in the case of Mahadeo Construction Co. - 2020-TIOL-850-HC-JHARKHAND-GST , it appears that if any assessee disputes the liability of interest under Section 50 of the JGST Act, then the revenue will have to follow the specific procedure as stipulated under Section 73 or 74 of the JGST Act - In the instant case, admittedly a notice was issued to the petitioner dated 6.11.2018 and the petitioner duly replied in form of objection - However the respondent-department vide letter dated 28.1.2019 repeated its earlier stand and refused to accept the petitioner's stand, therefore, it clearly transpires that the respondents have not followed the procedure as enshrined in Section 73 or 74 of the JGST Act - Consequently, letter dated 6.11.2018 as well as the impugned order dated 28.1.2019 whereby the objection filed by the petitioner towards payment of interest under Section 50 of JGST Act has been negated, are hereby, quashed and set aside - Matter is remitted for initiation of a fresh proceeding with regard to the liability towards interest under Section 50 of JGST Act - Petitions disposed of: High Court [para 7, 8, 9]
- Matter remitted: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1124-HC-JHARKHAND-GST
Om Prakash Store Vs State of Jharkhand
GST - Summary show cause notice dated 15.05.2019 and 16.05.2019 was issued to the petitioner in form GST DRC-01 and pursuant thereto, straightaway, without issuing SCN and notice of personal hearing, adjudication order u/s 73(1) was passed against the petitioner - As a matter of fact, all of a sudden the bank attachment notice u/s 79(1)(c) dated 08.09.2021 was issued to the bank of the petitioner by attaching the bank account pursuant to form GST DRC-07; that it is only after issuance of form GST DRC-13 that the petitioner came to know about the adjudication proceeding and the orders passed by the adjudicating authorities - Petitioner has assailed these orders. Held: It clearly transpires that the statutory requirements as enshrined under Section 73 and 75 of the JGST Act has not been followed and as a matter of fact principles of natural justice has also not been followed and thus, both these writ applications are maintainable - I mpugned adjudication order in both these writ applications are not in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground of non-compliance of statutory provisions of the JGST Act and for non-compliance of principles of natural justice - Issue involved is squarely covered by the judgment delivered in the case of NKAS Services Private Limited - 2021-TIOL-2079-HC-JHARKHAND-GST - Matter is remitted back to the adjudicating authority to issue a fresh show cause notice and after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, pass an order afresh - So far as 10 % deposit of the tax amount is concerned; after issuance of fresh adjudication order the petitioner may file for refund of the claim if fresh adjudication order is not against him and /or the said amount shall be adjusted from his future tax liability - Petitions allowed: High Court [para 16, 17]
- Petition's allowed: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
