|
2022-TIOL-1359-HC-MAD-GST
C Manogaran Vs Commissioner/Additional Chief Secretary
GST - Petitioner participated in the tender process called by the District Collector under the Tamil Nadu Minor and Mineral Concession Rules for grant of lease for carrying out quarry operations of rough stone for a period of five years - Petitioner was declared as successful bidder and lease was granted by the District Collector - Now the respondents are insisting and compelling the petitioner to register the quarry operations under the GST Act, 2017 and to pay the GST on the seigniorage fee paid by the petitioner to the Geology and Mining department - Petitioner submits that the said act of levying GST has already been challenged before the Honourable Apex Court in W.P(Civil) No.1076 of 2021 in the case of Lakhwinder Singh Vs. Union of India and others, dated 04.10.2021 - 2021-TIOL-266-SC-GST as well as before various other high Courts; that the issue with regard to royalty collected for the transport of minerals has been considered as tax or profit pentra; is pending before the Honourable 9 Judges Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court; that further, the Apex Court has granted stay for payment of GST for grant of mining lease/royalty by the petitioner, which has been followed by the various Courts including this Court; therefore, the issuance of the impugned notice is improper.
Held: It is seen that the Apex Court in the case of Lakhwinder Singh Vs. Union of India and others , had granted stay for payment of GST for grant of mining lease/royalty by the petitioner - Further, it has been followed consistently by various Courts including this Court - It is further seen that the impugned order is only a notice - The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondents and make his objections with necessary documents - second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's objections and dispose the same in accordance with law following the judgment of the Apex Court - Till such time, status quo to be maintained by the respondents - Writ petition is disposed of: High Court [para 5]
- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1358-HC-AP-GST
Hero Wiretex Ltd Vs UoI
GST - A show cause notice was issued on 17.05.2022 informing the petitioner about the cancellation of the GST registration due to non-compliance of certain provisions in the GST Act or the Rules made there under - Later on, another show cause notice, dated 27.05.2022, came to be issued, which indicates that the petitioner has submitted some fake Input Tax Credit invoices for claiming ITC benefit - The said show cause notices came to be challenged on the ground that the material on which reliance was placed for issuing the show cause notices or for passing the order impugned was not furnished to the petitioner - It is urged that the first show cause notice does not contain the provisions of the GST Act which were said to have been violated - However, explanations to the said show cause notices were submitted and order impugned came to be passed cancelling the registration, relying on certain documents which were also not supplied to the petitioner - Petitioner submits that there is no evidence to show that the material, which was alleged to have been enclosed along with the show cause notices, was the material which was relied upon by the authority while passing the order and since the order does not indicate the material relied upon, pleads quashing of the same.
Held: As the first notice issued is bereft of provisions of law, which are alleged to have been violated; and as the second notice, which was issued on the very same day, contains details, to which no opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his explanation, Court is of the opinion that the order under challenge is liable to be set aside and the matter be remanded to the 3rd respondent - Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order under challenge, dated 06.07.2022 and the matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent for issuing fresh notice and passing orders in accordance with law: High Court [para 8, 9]
- Matter remanded: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1357-HC-TELANGANA-GST
N Rama Rao Vs UoI
GST - Petition in the form of public interest litigation was filed by N.Rama Rao, a resident of Wyra Municipality, Khammam District seeking relief, inter alia , declaring the inactions of the 4th and the 5th respondents in not initiating actions against 6th to 11th respondents in demanding/recovering GST collected from the television subscribers/customers since year 2017 till date - Counsel for Revenue, in his affidavit, submits that the petitioner during his life time filed applications under the RTI Act, 2005 seeking certain information about payment of GST by Master Satellite Operators and local cable operators in Khammam Town and their registration, the notices issued and action taken for non-payment of GST; that the cable operators have submitted their objections and the same are under consideration of the Assistant Commissioner.
Held: Bench directs the Assistant Commissioner (ST) No.II, Khammam, being the proper officer under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as well as under the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to take an appropriate decision in the matter within a period of three months - Petition is disposed of accordingly: High Court [para 7]
- Petition disposed of: TELANGANA HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1356-HC-AP-GST
Abhijeet Ferrotech Ltd Vs Asstt. Commissioner (ST)
GST - Petitioner raised various contentions stating that the impugned order has been passed by the 1st respondent without jurisdiction and, therefore, the same is non-est in law and further contended that the same is passed without giving opportunity to the petitioner to submit its objections to the show cause notice, which is violative of the principles of natural justice - Counsel for Respondent Revenue submits that against the impugned order, an effective alternative remedy of appeal is provided to the appellate authority under Section 107 of CGST Act, and only to avoid payment of the statutory deposit of 10% of the demanded tax to prefer the appeal, petitioner, without availing the said effective remedy of appeal, approached this Court on the ground that there is gross violation of the principles of natural justice, and the grounds raised in the writ petition can as well be raised before the appellate authority.
Held: Without going into merits of the matter, this Court, in the interests of justice, feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority provided under Section 107 of the CGST Act - It is left open to the petitioner to raise all the grounds raised in the writ petition before the appellate authority - Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of: High Court
- Petition disposed of: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1355-HC-MUM-GST
Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Petition filed seeking setting aside of the refund rejection order filed by the petitioner for a refund of Rs.88,46,01,539/- for the period October 2020 and December 2020 along with interest; that the respondent has sanctioned refund of Rs.1,02,74,14,843/- for the period April 2019 to September 2019 but without interest - Counsel for respondent Revenue submits that interest could not be granted because the department had not received the interest calculations from the petitioner.
Held: Stand of respondent is rather surprising because whatever application petitioner may file, respondents would not simply grant the amount without ascertaining that the petitioner's claim is correct, therefore, such contention is a baseless excuse - Insofar as refund of Rs.88,46,01,539/- is concerned, respondent no.3 had rejected the refund application but the department has reviewed that order dated 29 July 2022 and has also filed appeal u/s.s (2) of s.107; that even the department has not accepted the impugned order and, therefore, petitioner is entitled to refund of Rs.88,46,01,539/- together with interest; that this amount should be paid within one week, on or before 31st October 2022 - Order dated 29 July 2022 quashed and set aside - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 3, 5, 6]
- Petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT |
|
